Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION (MYXOMATOSIS)

Mr. Hayman: I beg to ask leave to present a Petition, spontaneously organised by Major, Mrs. and Miss Garby-Turner of Redruth, in my constituency, and of Richmond, Surrey. Deeply moved by the widespread and protracted suffering inflicted on the rabbit population through the deliberate spreading of myxomatosis and by the dangers implicit in this type of germ and virus warfare, they organised a Petition which was signed by 126,000 people within a few weeks. The prayer of the Petition is as follows:
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that legislation be introduced to make illegal the deliberate spreading of myxomatosis, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Reception, Oldham

Mr. Hale: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware that it is difficult and almost impossible to obtain an audible transmission of the Third Programme in the Oldham area; by what date it is anticipated that an adequate reception will be possible; and how far this will involve modification of existing receiving sets.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): I know there are difficulties, but the B.B.C. advises me that the aerial at the Daventry station was modified in August, and that this should have brought some improvement. With medium wavelengths nothing more is possible, but the new V.H.F. station at

Holme Moss should give good reception. This station is included in the Corporation's first list, and is expected to open towards the end of 1956. Adaptors will be needed for existing sets.

Mr. Hale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is the sort of answer that has been given for years, and until Lord Kemsley and Lord Rothermere take over Oldham's culture under the T.V. scheme the people of Oldham will pay the same amount for their annual licences as the people in London?

Mr. Gammans: As I have explained to the House on more than one occasion, no improvement is possible on the medium wavelength, and that is one of the main reasons inducing the Government to sanction the V.H.F. programme which the B.B.C. is putting forward.

Booster, Truleigh Hill

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there are grounds for believing that when regular television broadcasts from the new Isle of Wight station are initiated, reception in the Brighton and Hove district will not be satisfactory unless the Truleigh Hill booster is maintained; and whether he will ensure that the booster is retained until satisfactory reception without it can be ensured.

Mr. Gammans: This matter is primarily a question for the B.B.C., but my noble Friend is in communication with them on the subject.

Mr. Marlowe: Does my hon. Friend realise that there are many people in this district who will get no reception whatever under the new arrangement, that it is not solely a matter for the B.B.C. but that there is a great moral responsibility on the part of his Department and the B.B.C., inasmuch as that when this station was instituted there was an undertaking that it would remain in position until the Isle of Wight station was in full production; that on the strength of that undertaking large numbers of people have bought sets and paid licence fees, and that, therefore, the Post Office is under an obligation to maintain the service until the Isle of Wight station comes into production?

Mr. Gammans: I fully appreciate the fact that there is considerable concern


locally, but we had better await the discussions which we are having with the B.B.C. on this subject.

Dr. King: As some of us have pestered the Minister about this station for a long time, may I ask him if he is aware that Hampshire folk of all political parties are grateful for the new Isle of Wight station, which will bring good television to Hampshire for the first time?

Mr. Teeling: Would it be possible for Sussex Members of Parliament, who are very much involved in this matter, to meet both the Assistant Postmaster-General and B.B.C. representatives at an early date and, until some final decision is reached, would it also be possible for the removal of the Truleigh Hill booster to be postponed?

Mr. Gammans: I should be delighted to arrange a deputation if the hon. Gentleman and his friends would like it. As to the last point, I will at once pass that suggestion to the B.B.C.

Mr. H. Johnson: Is the hon. Member aware that, if there is either ability or willingness on the part of the B.B.C., the Truleigh Hill booster could be retained to operate on a staggered frequency, on the same basis as on the Continent and in America, and will he pursue that aspect of the matter with his noble Friend?

Mr. Gammans: We had better wait until we have had the deputation to my noble Friend and the B.B.C., when all those points can be put forward.

Television Station, Central Norfolk

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how soon the new television station to serve the central part of Norfolk will be ready to operate.

Mr. Gammans: February, 1955.

Television Service (Wavelength Allocation)

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what discussions he has had with the British Broadcasting Corporation regarding the allocation of wavelengths for a second British Broadcasting Corporation television programme.

Mr. Gammans: My noble Friend is aware of the plans for a second B.B.C. television programme in their 10-year development plan of 1953, but in view of the technical and other considerations involved it is unlikely that a decision will be reached for some time.

Mr. Mayhew: But would the Minister agree that the B.B.C.'s standards of political impartiality are at least as high as those of the "Daily Mail" and the "Evening News," and that its standards of taste are no lower than those of the "Sunday Dispatch" and "Weekend Mail"? Will he give some encouragement to the B.B.C. in future, instead of merely to the Tory Press barons he has put in charge?

Mr. Gammans: The hon. Gentleman has made a statement which has given him much pleasure. I have no further answer to give the House than the one I have already given.

Mr. Callaghan: As a second wavelength is not to be provided for some time, is the Postmaster-General trying to preserve a monopoly for the Rothermere Press for the next General Election?

Mr. Gammans: The B.B.C. has been informed that its 10-year development programme is under consideration, and as soon as a decision has been reached about whether or not it will have a second programme the necessary decision about wavelengths will be given.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the decision to allow the I.T.A. to use the masts of the B.B.C. is likely to retard the opportunities of the B.B.C. for a second programme?

Mr. Gammans: I gather not at all. It is purely a friendly arrangement between the B.B.C. and the I.T.A.

Mr. H. Morrison: Has not the whole of the Government's case upon this matter rested on the argument that there should be alternative television programmes? Are we now to understand that the Government are forbidding the B.B.C. to have an alternate television programme for the time being? Are thay holding up the B.B.C. in order that they may give preference to their friends, the Kemsley Press and the "Daily Mail"?

Mr. Gammans: If the right hon. Gentleman will read the 10-year development programme he will see that the B.B.C. does not expect to be in a position to start its second programme before 1957.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Oldham

Mr. Hale: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware that an important all-night garage in Oldham is still unable to obtain a full telephone service, owing to the economy cuts made in Post Office development expenditure; and whether he will now take the necessary steps towards maintaining adequate telephone development services.

Mr. Gammans: The garage, which already has shared service, will be given an exclusive line when new cables can be laid, but this cannot be done for some time. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that whilst the Post Office, like other organisations, has not obtained all the capital it would wish, there has been no cut: on the contrary, the investment for telephone development has risen from £41 million in 1950–51 to over £79 million in 1955–56. Our first priority must be to give service where none at all exists at present.

Mr. Hale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am getting more complaints now from Oldham than any time since I have been a Member of the House? [Laughter.] I am much obliged; they are not about me but about the Government, and, in particular, complaints about the Post Office and the Assistant Postmaster-General. Is he aware that only this week I had from a main street of Oldham, Huddersfield Road, a complaint about the absence of telephone facilities? What is the hon. Gentleman doing about it, and will he bear in mind that the fate that awaits Ministers who do not stand up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been evidenced in the last week or so?

Mr. Gammans: I think we have stood up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—if that is the right word—with some success because we have got our allocation nearly doubled within the past five years. There has been an extraordinary rise in demand, and I think the House will be

interested to know that the rise in demand in the past year has been no less than 70,000.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the hon. Gentleman rather complacent, and is it not a fact that the telephone demand is going up and up, and that the allocation of capital is still not adequate to meet the demand? Will he press the Treasury to release the Post Office from these restrictions?

Mr. Gammans: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not in the least complacent, and I should be delighted to spend more money, if more were available.

Coin Boxes (Threepenny Pieces)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what progress has been made in producing a coin box of a new design which will accept threepenny pieces.

Mr. Gammans: Work is being done on the design of a new coin box having, among other features, a slot for threepenny pieces, but it will be a considerable time before a new box can be introduced into general use.

Mr. Dodds: Will the hon. Gentleman appreciate that this would be a most welcome innovation, and will he do his utmost to get these boxes in full circulation at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Gammans: Yes, I am as keen as is the hon. Gentleman, because it would help the Post Office considerably in collecting money, but I must warn the House that it would cost approximately £350,000 to adapt the existing boxes.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether among the new features there will be a time-limit switch, or must we continue to stand outside call boxes while marathon calls are going on?

Mr. Gammans: There is no suggestion of time switches being in the new boxes.

Kiosks

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware of the need for telephone kiosks on the St. John's Housing Estate, Huyton, Lancashire, which has been before the Post


Office authorities for over two years; and whether he will now take steps to make the necessary installations.

Mr. Gammans: There are two kiosks on the borders of this estate and three more are planned. Negotiations for two sites are in hand and work will be started as soon as the necessary consents are received. The other kiosk will be installed in Tennyson Road when the houses in that area have been built.

Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman say why there has been all this delay, and whether the fault lies with the Post Office or with some earlier delays on the part of the local council? He said that consents have to be obtained, but from whom, and what has caused the delay?

Mr. Gammans: Consents have to be obtained for wayleaves. So far as I am aware, there has been no undue delay on the part of the Post Office.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what progress is being made in installing telephone kiosks in the new housing scheme in the Drumchapel area of Scotstoun.

Mr. Gammans: Five kiosks are working on the new estate and four more will be provided within the next three months. A further five, making 14 in all, will be added as building progresses.

Mr. John MacLeod: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware that the sums of money which have been allocated in the current year to the county of Ross and Cromarty to meet the cost of installing telephone kiosks are inadequate; and whether he will increase the present allocation.

Mr. Gammans: Three kiosks are being provided this year, of which one alone will cost £1,200: we are also replacing 23 telephones inside post offices by outside kiosks, in order to give a 24-hour service. We are already spending more than the allocation for Ross and Cromarty, and I regret that it cannot be further increased this year.

Mr. MacLeod: Whilst thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask if he realises that it is the cumulative effect of the lack of such amenities which is causing a very serious depopulation of the Highlands at present; and that if we

encourage more people to go there it will not cost so much to put telephone kiosks there? Will he do all in his power to see that these provisions, which have been increased, are given to the people of the Highlands?

Mr. Gammans: I fully appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend, but I have to remind him that we have to take costs into consideration and, whereas in this particular case a single kiosk costs £1,200, the average for rural kiosks in the country is only £210.

Mr. W. R. Williams: If the allocation is being exceeded in that part of the country, why cannot the allocation for Anglesey be exceeded?

Mr. Gammans: It so happened that the amount of money spent in Ross and Cromarty slightly exceeded the allocation, but I was trying to impress on my hon. Friend that the district is not being badly treated.

Anglesey

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the number of applicants now waiting for telephones in Anglesey and, of these, how many have been waiting for over three years.

Mr. Gammans: Three hundred and seventy-six applications are outstanding, excluding 102 in the course of being met or under inquiry. Seventy-seven have been waiting more than three years. Nearly 400 lines have been connected in Anglesey in the past 12 months.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the position is very unsatisfactory, and that his officials are saying that telephones cannot be installed in many areas of Anglesey for a considerable time because of the lack of suitable cable? Can he say whether this is due to a general shortage of cable in the country or to a lack of capital investment?

Mr. Gammans: It is probably due to the fact that Anglesey is a very scattered county and, therefore, that it costs far more in labour and in money to install a telephone in that part of Wales. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the position is now 141 better than it was when he last asked me about it.

Journalists (Priority)

Mr. Simmons: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware that a telephone is a tool of the trade for journalists on daily newspapers who represent outlying districts; and if he will arrange for them to be given a high priority for installation.

Mr. Gammans: We are anxious that journalists should be provided with telephones, and we are giving them a measure of priority.

Mr. Simmons: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall a case which I brought to his notice quite recently in which a journalist had been told that he would have to wait until August? Does the hon. Gentleman not know that buildings are being put up in which telephones are being installed before business people go in? Does he not know that a "bookie," or commission agent as no doubt he would politely call him, has sometimes a dozen telephones on his desk, and that a journalist, to whom a telephone is essential, has his job jeopardised by not having a telephone?

Mr. Gammans: As a result of the representations made by the hon. Member in this case, I have gone into the whole matter of priorities. That is why I gave him the reply which I have just given.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman mean by that reply that the odds are 12 to one on the bookie?

Mr. J. Rodgers: Does the definition of a journalist include one who works on a weekly or a Sunday newspaper as well as one who works on a daily paper?

Mr. Gammans: Yes, Sir. We are including those as well as free-lance journalists.

Mid-Calder

Mr. Pryde: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when his Department will be able to accept applications for telephones at Mid-Calder, Midlothian.

Mr. Gammans: We are of course accepting applications all the time, and there were 11 people connected during the past 12 months. The exchange will be enlarged in the New Year and more cable schemes have been planned. I anticipate this will enable us to connect more people next year.

Mr. Pryde: Will the Minister examine this position very closely and try to get a high priority for this area?

Mr. Gammans: Yes, Sir, I will certainly do the best for the hon. Gentleman that I can.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Housing Estate, Kirkby (Facilities)

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware of the lack of adequate post office facilities, including telephone kiosks, in the new housing estate at Kirkby, near Liverpool; and what steps he is taking in the matter.

Mr. Gammans: Building has started on a new Crown post office on the Southdene unit which it is hoped to open by the end of next year. Two more letter boxes and three more telephone kiosks will be provided very shortly and others will be added as building on the estate proceeds.

Mr. Wilson: Whilst thanking the hon. Gentleman for that answer, may I ask whether he realises the great inconvenience under which urgent calls have to be made, particularly those involving medical services in emergencies?

Mr. Gammans: I fully realise that, but we are in communication with the Liverpool Council with regard to the possibility of opening a temporary office even before the time mentioned in my answer.

Fire, Mount Pleasant (Alarm)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why there was a 20-minute delay between the outbreak of fire at Mount Pleasant and the call to the London Fire Brigade on 5th October.

Mr. Gammans: Twenty minutes elapsed between the first discovery of the fire and the alarm being given to the fire station at Clerkenwell, but there was no delay in tackling the fire by the Post Office trained fire fighting squad. My noble Friend is still not entirely satisfied that there was no undue delay in summoning the fire brigade when the fire appeared to be beyond the control of the fire fighting squad, and investigations are still proceeding on this point.

Mr. Swingler: Will the hon. Gentleman, whom I thank for that reply, ensure that instructions are immediately issued that when a serious fire like this occurs, which could cause considerable damage, the fire brigade is called at once?

Mr. Gammans: I do not think there is anything wrong about the instructions, which were there already, but what we are not quite sure about is whether they were carried out.

Mr. Collins: Can the Minister say that any delay was not the fault of the fire brigade, and that it got there as soon as possible after receiving the call?

Mr. Gammans: Yes, the fire brigade was on the spot within a minute or two.

Mail Robberies

Mrs. Mann: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what progress has been made in tracing or tracking those concerned in the robbery of the registered mail van which occurred on 23rd May, 1952.

Mr. Gammans: I am informed that police inquiries are continuing.

Mrs. Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman state the amount of money that is involved, and whether a motor car containing a very large sum of money was found after being abandoned by bandits?

Mr. Gammans: The hon. Lady is asking a question which is not on the Order Paper.

Mrs. Mann: If I put a Question on the Order Paper, will the hon. Gentleman answer it?

Mr. Gammans: I can give the answer now. Approximately £250,000 was involved and I believe that there was a case of some money found abandoned in another car.

Mr. Hobson: In view of the many statements that have appeared quite recently on this robbery, does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is about time his noble Friend made a new, up-to-date statement?

Mr. Gammans: I will put that point to my noble Friend, but I must point out that inquiries into this matter are almost entirely in the hands of the police,

and, therefore, any further Questions about it, strictly speaking, should be addressed to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is it not a perfectly futile thing for the hon. Gentleman to try to throw the blame on the police? Is it not the duty of his Department to take adequate care of Her Majesty's mail?

Mr. Gammans: I am not trying to throw the blame on the police. The point is that it is primarily the duty of the police to catch people who have done this sort of thing.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many mail bag robberies have taken place in 1954; and the corresponding figure for 1953.

Mr. Gammans: The number of robberies as such is not available but 413 bags were recorded as missing during the first nine months of 1954, as compared with 638 in the corresponding period last year.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that reasonable progress is being made, because it is going to take a long time at this rate to cut down the number of missing mail bags?

Mr. Gammans: During the period to which we are referring, the total number of mailbags in circulation was 270 million.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate whether he has any power to intervene in the monopoly contract of mailbag robberies?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what action has been taken to test a device making it impossible to steal mail vans, details of which were sent to his Department on 12th February last, and acknowledged under reference number 47686/52.

Mr. Gammans: The device was demonstrated on 16th February to security experts, who found it unsuitable for use by the Post Office; the inventor was so informed.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to information I have received from the company which is marketing this device, all


it has received is a card of acknowledgement and it has no knowledge of the test to which the hon. Gentleman refers?

Mr. Gammans: If the hon. and gallant Member tells me that the demonstration has not taken place, as I am informed it has, I shall be most pleased to look into the matter.

Mrs. Mann: When the device has been found suitable, what action will be taken to see that it is not stolen?

Mr. Gammans: If a Post Office van fitted with this device were stolen, I am afraid that the device itself would also be stolen.

Letters, Brierley Hill (Postmark)

Mr. Simmons: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why letters arriving in the Palace of Westminster from Brierley Hill, Staffordshire, carry the postmark of Dudley, which is in Worcestershire.

Mr. Gammans: It would be uneconomic to keep open the local sorting office in Brierley Hill after 3.0 p.m., and letters posted in the district after that time are, therefore, taken into the Dudley office for postmarking and despatch.

Mr. Simmons: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether any delay is caused by this practice? I have had many complaints, including one from a constituent of mine who sits on this side of the House. Has not a district which is approaching borough status a right to its own postmark?

Mr. Gammans: If the hon. Member gives particulars of the delay, I shall be glad to look into them. My information is that this arrangement does not make the slightest difference in the delivery of letters.

Sub-Offices

Mr. Hastings: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will arrange that all sub-post offices in country districts bear a notice stating the hours during which they are open to transact business, and also a letter box for posting letters within a reasonable distance of the office.

Mr. Gammans: There should be a letter box at or near every country sub-post office and they should all have notices showing their hours of opening.
If the hon. Member knows of any particular case where this is not so and will let me have details, I shall be glad to have inquiries made.

Mr. Hastings: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of these sub-post offices are in private houses, not shops, and people in the district have no idea when they can use these post offices and when they cannot?

Mr. Gammans: There should be a notice outside, and I am very surprised to hear these comments from the hon. Member.

Mr. Janner: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware that householders at the Stocking Farm Estate, Leicester, who are almost entirely people with young children or old-age pensioners, are handicapped by the lack of a sub-post office on this estate, and if he will establish a sub-post office without delay.

Mr. Gammans: I am looking into this matter and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Janner: When the hon. Gentleman is looking into the matter, will he bear in mind that this is a new estate where there are bungalows for aged people, and that it is really unfair to ask them to go to a public post office in order to collect their pension?

Mr. Gammans: All these considerations will be taken into account. It is because I felt that they required looking into more thoroughly that I gave the answer that I did.

Office, Brixton

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what progress has been made towards providing a larger Crown post office in Brixton.

Mr. Gammans: Premises are now in view which we hope to lease and adapt for a larger office.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer will be received with very great satisfaction by my constituents, who are very interested in buying as many postage stamps and postal orders as they possibly can?

Mail (Delivery Delays)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware that Mr. Harry Dyas, a Healing bulb grower, has received mail bags from his Grimsby office for the packing of catalogues and parcels which contained about 50 letters bearing post-marks two months' old and about 10 Post Office savings books; what important letters were amongst this two-months' old undelivered mail; and what steps he is taking to prevent a repetition of such unsatisfactory work.

Mr. Gammans: I am aware of these regrettable incidents, which would not have happened if standing Post Office instructions to turn all letter bags inside out had been observed, and all possible steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence.

Mr. Osborne: Can my hon. Friend say what steps he is taking to see who is the one man in his Department who spoils the good work of, say, a dozen others?

Mr. Gammans: We have a special committee of inquiry now working to try to find out exactly what happened and who was responsible.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDEPENDENT TELEVISION AUTHORITY

Advertisements

Mr. Chapman: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what rules have been agreed under Schedule II of the Television Act, 1954, with the Independent Television Authority as to the interval which must elapse between periods of advertisements in the Authority's programmes, and as to the classes of broadcasts in which advertisements may not be inserted.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what discussions he has had with the Independent Television Authority regarding the classes and descriptions of goods and services which must not be advertised on commercial television.

Mr. Gammans: None, Sir. Discussions will take place as soon as the Independent Television Authority is in a position to submit proposals.

Mr. Chapman: How can the programme contractors offer even to provide

programmes if they do not as yet know how many minutes they will be allowed in the way of advertisement time? How is the whole set-up being managed in the absence of these rules?

Mr. Gammans: The question of contracts is a matter for the Independent Television Authority, and no doubt the programme contractors have assumed that normal advertising practice will prevail.

Mr. Mayhew: With regard to the classes of advertisements permitted, what will the Minister recommend about advertisements of newspapers, and particularly Conservative newspapers, which in this shameful way may control a large part of this system?

Mr. Gammans: The hon. Gentleman asks me to prejudge the discussions which the I.T.A. will have with my noble Friend.

Mr. Callaghan: So far as Question No. 33 is concerned, will the Minister give us an assurance that Mr. Woolfson will not be able to get a monopoly control for the advertisement of his own furniture stores.

Mr. Gammans: The question of the selection of programme contractors has nothing to do with my noble Friend.

Mr. Callaghan: That is not the point. Will the Government give us an undertaking that no one financial backer who has large industrial or retail interests will have a monopoly for the advertisement of his own wares?

Mr. Gammans: That is already provided for in the Act.

Programme Contractors

Mr. Chapman: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Television Act so as to secure that the Postmaster-General has power to secure that there is adequate competition between independent programme contractors under the Independent Television Authority.

Mr. Shackleton: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will introduce legislation to enable the Postmaster-General to take the necessary steps to ensure that the provisions of the Television Act, 1954, Section 5, with


regard to the selection and appointment of programme contractors, are fulfilled, with particular reference to the securing of adequate competition.

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir. My noble Friend sees no reason to doubt the will and ability of the Independent Television Authority to carry out their obligations under Section 5 (2) of the Television Act.

Mr. Chapman: Is it not the case that, quite contrary to Section 5 (2) of the Act, which insists on real competition between really independent programme contractors, the Independent Television Authority is giving monopoly positions, and not competition, to a group of enormous big-business interests, some of which may well be and probably are inter-linked? What is the hon. Gentleman doing to see that that Section of the Act is being carried out with regard to competition between the contractors and their real independence?

Mr. Gammans: I think that the hon. Member is expressing a personal opinion. This is a duty which is laid upon the Authority and not upon my noble Friend.

Mr. Shackleton: Has the hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the Report of the Royal Commission on the Press and, if he has not, would he look up the appropriate sections and draw the attention of the I.T.A. to those sections where it is clearly laid down in an unequivocal way that the Royal Commission would deplore any extension of the activities of certain Press chains, particularly Associated Newspapers and Kemsleys?

Mr. Gammans: I remind the House that this is an obligation which is not laid upon my noble Friend. It is laid entirely upon the Authority.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that two programme contractors have a financial link and that there is an obligation on the Postmaster-General to see that there are no tie-ups between programme contractors? How is the Postmaster-General going to see that the provisions of the Act are carried out by the Authority?

Mr. Gammans: The Question I was asked was whether I am prepared to amend the Act, and the answer was "No."

Captain Orr: Is it not a fact that with only three transmitters it is very difficult to carry out the provisions of the Act, and that the better way to ensure that there is sufficient and adequate competition is to encourage the Authority to set up more transmitters and for the Post Office to make frequencies available for these?

Mr. Gammans: That is entirely a matter for the Authority.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is really against the spirit of the Act that there will be important newspapers which will have an interest in not criticising the commercial programme, thus tending to undermine that independence?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Elliot: Will my hon. Friend——

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is not entitled to demand an answer, and interrupting another hon. Member is disorderly.

Mr. Elliot: Will my hon. Friend take note of the great desire of the Opposition for political interference with so-called independent boards? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Will he bring it to the notice of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power as an example of how the Opposition would like to treat the Coal Board?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman take note that his right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) has always defended him and now wants him to acquiesce in a breach of an Act of Parliament?

Mr. Wyatt: Is there any point in asking questions of the Minister if he declines to answer them?

Mr. Speaker: That is for the House to judge, but I think that we ought to get on.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will take powers to control the Independent Television Authority in its choice of programme contractors to ensure that the persons providing programmes are not influenced by political or industrial


interests which may result in programmes not conforming to a proper degree of impartiality.

Mr. Shackleton: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Television Act, 1954, so as to give the Postmaster-General powers to intervene if he is not satisfied that the control of programmes in this new service rests in the hands of persons who are politically impartial.

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will introduce legislation to enable the Postmaster-General to exercise supervision over the choice of programme contractors for the Independent Television Authority so as to obviate the possibility of political bias in the allocation of programme time.

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir. Subsections 1 (f) and 2 of Section 3 of the Act recently approved by Parliament made full provision for this point.

Mr. Edwards: Do I take it from that reply that the hon. Gentleman and his noble Friend take the view that no matter what the I.T.A. do, whether in breach of the Act or of undertakings given by responsible Ministers on the Floor of the House, he has no responsibility?

Mr. Gammans: I have no responsibility whatever for the selection of programme contractors.

Mr. Shackleton: Does the Assistant Postmaster-General understand that that is why we are asking him to introduce legislation? Will he further say whether, in his opinion, certain of those who have been seeking and some who have obtained programme allocations are politically impartial, whatever their party may be, in particular the "Daily Mirror"?

Mr. Gammans: It would be improper for me to give a personal opinion on a subject for which I have no responsibility to this House.

Sir R. Grimston: Does not my hon. Friend think that a great deal of this agitation is stemming from the "Daily Mirror," which made no application to become a programme contractor and is now endeavouring to smear the I.T.A. because it has not got a contract?

Mr. Gammans: I have only seen what the "Daily Mirror" itself has stated.

Mr. Wyatt: Has not the hon. Gentleman read the article in the "Observer," by Randolph Churchill, who cannot be accused of political bias against the party opposite? Is he not aware that many people in his own party are disturbed by the fact that the Government set out by pretending to abolish a monopoly and in fact have brought about a situation in which monopolies are inevitably strengthened and now the situation has arrived in which the powerful business interests supporting the party opposite are being allowed unlimited use of the air?

Mr. Gammans: Hon. Members of this House should be very careful about making a serious charge of political partiality against a statutory body set up by this House.

Mr. Marlowe: Owing to the manifest dissatisfaction of hon. Members opposite, does not my hon. Friend think he might reconsider the arrangements made whereby the Authority is in the hands of a Socialist Director-General?

Mr. Speaker: A great deal of that is ironical.

Mr. Mayhew: Instead of trying to get an equal balance of political partisanship, would it not have been more sensible to put the provision of programmes into the hands of people with no ties in party politics at all?

Mr. Gammans: That is exactly why we set up the Independent Television Authority.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many programme companies applied for licences to the Postmaster-General before the passing of the Television Act, 1954.

Mr. Gammans: None, Sir. Selection of programme companies is a matter for the Independent Television Authority, and I assume the right hon. Member has in mind individuals or organisations who made preliminary inquiries of my noble Friend. These numbered 52.

Mr. Hobson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will introduce legislation to enable him to require the


Independent Television Authority to give information on the capital resources of programme companies.

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir.

Mr. Hobson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that under the existing Act there is nothing to prevent a change of ownership of these programme contractors? Is it not desirable that we should know who are the owners and sponsors? Does the hon. Gentleman associate himself with the remarks of the Chairman of the I.T.A. that £2 million capital is required to start a programme contractor?

Mr. Gammans: The question of capital is not for me. I think the Authority has all the power necessary under Section 5 (5) to call for all the information it requires from the contractors to ensure that all the requirements of the Act are carried out.

Mr. H. Morrison: Surely these matters go beyond the powers of the Authority? Is the Assistant Postmaster-General not aware that high issues of public policy and national interest are involved in the nature of the contractors, the amount of capital resources they have got and where they come from; and if we are to get to the position in which great newspaper proprietors—some with chain monopolies—are to extend their public influence into television, is it not a matter of public interest? Is the Government to be entirely indifferent to these things?

Mr. Gammans: My noble Friend is only called upon to exercise those powers given to him by this House.

Mr. Hobson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will make alterations to the appropriate section of the Television Act regarding the formation of programme companies to ensure control by the Postmaster-General.

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir.

Mr. Hobson: Does not the Assistant Postmaster-General think that those people who have already been allocated programmes are not independent in any way, and that they are already powerful opinion-forming organisations? What step is he considering to rectify that, and to guarantee their independence?

Mr. Gammans: The hon. Gentleman is, I think, by implication making a charge of political partiality against a statutory body set up by this House, and we are not prepared to alter the Act to effect what the hon. Gentleman wants.

Hon. Members: Resign.

Mr. H. Morrison: Of course we are making a charge of political partiality—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] The charge is against the Government and it may be the case that it is against the Television Authority. Can the hon. Gentleman say why these first contracts should be let to the proprietors of Conservative newspapers? Is not that in line with the whole policy of the Government in public relations; that they are using public relations, and now commercial television, to further the political interests of their party?

Mr. Gammans: I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that he does make a charge of political partiality against the Independent Television Authority, and he has suggested by implication that undue pressure has been put upon it by Her Majesty's Government. I deny any suggestions of that sort.

Mr. Elliot: Is it not characteristic of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the right hon. Gentleman in particular, that when they are dissatisfied with the verdict they try to bawl out the referee?

Mr. Ness Edwards: To come back to the Question on the Order Paper, is not the hon. Gentleman aware that a financial tie-up has already occurred between two programme contractors? Is not that in contradiction of the undertaking given by the hon. Gentleman at that Dispatch Box, and is he going to do nothing about it?

Hon. Members: Resign.

Mr. Gammans: The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) is asking whether I will make alterations in the Television Act to ensure control by the Postmaster-General. This matter was debated at great length by this House during consideration of the Television Bill, both on Second Reading and in the Committee stage. The answer to the question is, "No."

Mr. Ness Edwards: You have betrayed this House.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: What did the right hon. Gentleman say? I did not hear; there was so much noise.

Mr. Edwards: I am quite prepared to repeat what I said. The hon. Gentleman has betrayed his promise to this House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the words were strictly un-Parliamentary, but I would ask the House to refrain from language of heat so far as possible.

Transmission Times

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what transmission times have been laid down by him for commercial television.

Mr. Gammans: None, Sir, as yet.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Do we take it that contracts are now being given for unspecified times? How can the I.T.A. do its job properly and get something which is not a "phoney" contract if it is not known for what period commercial television is to be allowed?

Mr. Gammans: It is no concern of mine, but I assume that offers of contracts have been made on certain assumptions, and those assumptions are those drawn by programme contractors.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Can we be told what assumptions have been made by the I.T.A., and whether the I.T.A. made them only after consultation with the Minister?

Mr. Gammans: As I have told the House, there have been no consultations as yet with my noble Friend.

Staff (Pensions)

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what discussions he has had with the Independent Television Authority regarding the payment of pensions to officers or persons employed by the Authority.

Mr. Gammans: None, as no proposals for staff pensions have as yet been put forward by the Authority for my noble Friend's approval.

Mr. Mayhew: Supposing that, in spite of the efforts of the programme contractors, the Conservative Party loses the next General Election, what provision is being made for the programme contractors whose employment then may be rather suddenly terminated?

Mr. Gammans: The hon. Gentleman is surely not asking for an answer based upon such an unlikely and improbable computation?

Finance

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what sums he estimates will be paid to the Independent Television Authority under Sections 11 and 12 of the Television Act during the year beginning with the date of the passing of the Act.

Mr. Gammans: It is too early yet to say.

Mr. Thomson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread shock and dismay throughout the country at the discovery that public money is to be used to subsidise facilities for big business undertakings and a small section of the millionaire Press? Is he aware that the money will be spent in such a way that it will not only prevent real competition in television but will gravely harm the health of the British Press by doing a lot of damage to those newspapers which are not in a position to round up their share of the £3 million capital which is to be the entrance fee for this mammoth closed shop organised by the Government?

Mr. Gammans: The hon. Gentleman asked me what sums I estimated would be paid to the Authority during the year beginning with the date of the passing of the Act. I am afraid that I am not in a position to give that information yet. As soon as I have the information, I shall be delighted to give it.

Mr. Usborne: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that perhaps the best thing that he can do now is to climb into a mailbag and get himself stolen?

Mr. Nabarro: Is not it a fact that this spate of Questions by hon. Gentlemen about political partiality springs from a deep sense of political inferiority?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I think that the House has had a fair run on these Questions.

Mr. Mayhew: On a point of order. In view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the answers, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: That disposes of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Folland Gnat Aircraft

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why he has refused to order the Folland Gnat for the use of the Royal Air Force, although a saving in two-thirds of the present cost in providing fighter aircraft could be made by doing so, without loss of efficiency.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): We are studying the development of this aircraft closely; but, for reasons which I explained in the Air Estimates debate last March, to strike a balance between quantity and quality is not the simple matter which might be inferred from the hon. Member's Question. In any event, there can be no possibility of ordering an aircraft which has yet to be proved in substitution for the fighters which are at present being delivered to re-equip the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Wyatt: As this aircraft is lighter than the others, and is the only British fighter capable of flying at supersonic speeds in level flight, and as it is one-third of the cost of the ordinary type of fighter, would not it be wise at least to order some for research purposes, because the other countries of Western Europe cannot possibly afford to arm themselves with the types that we now employ?

Mr. Ward: The initial version of the Gnat is broadly comparable in performance to that of the Hunter and the Swift, but it is considerably behind them in the time when it would be available for delivery to the Royal Air Force. We cannot possibly afford to delay the re-equipment of the squadrons which are waiting for aircraft. However, we are studying it, and a later development may well prove of value.

Mr. Wyatt: Is not it the case that if given Government backing 50 aircraft a month of this type could be produced by 1956?

Mr. Ward: That is not so, because the engine is not developed yet and would not be by then.

Dr. Bennett: Although the aircraft is a very impressive one, is not it a fact that it is only on a par with machines now in service? Would not it be a matter of greater importance to pursue the development of the rocket fighter for high altitude interception?

Mr. Ward: Of course we are studying that too.

Mr. A. Henderson: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether N.A.T.O. headquarters is showing any interest in this fighter and, if so, can he say what they propose to do about it?

Mr. Ward: They are showing interest in it, but of course it is not the only competitor in that field. We have not heard yet what their decision will be.

Bombing Range, Cuxhaven (Bird Life)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware of the loss of bird life on the coast of North-West Germany as a result of recent bombing practice in the neighbourhood of Cuxhaven; and if he will discontinue this practice.

Mr. Ward: The danger to birds on the bombing range near Cuxhaven is greatest during the moulting season in July and August. I am considering what alterations we can make to our practice bombing programme during these two months.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there has been considerable damage to bird life in this bird sanctuary at different times of the year from those which he mentioned? Is he aware that on 19th October the German Press described the results of this bombing raid on the German coast and said that bird life was destroyed, and that this roused considerable indignation in Germany? Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that in future our German allies will be treated with more respect, and that the bombing of the German coast will be discontinued?

Mr. Ward: I am aware of the seriousness of the problem. I have considered it carefully. The reports referred to harm done to birds in July and August. That is because they are moulting then and


cannot fly. They cannot get out of the way. I am looking into the matter to see what we can do.

Discipline

Mr. Osborne: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if his attention has been called to the remarks of the chairman of the Louth magistrates' court on the lack of discipline among young airmen and the want of supervision by senior officers; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with this situation.

Mr. Ward: The report I have seen gives the impression that the chairman's criticisms of Royal Air Force discipline were based upon a statement by one of the accused that he held a permanent pass which enabled him to be out of camp for the whole of every night. In point of fact, the pass held by the airman entitled him only to be out of camp until one a.m. I do not consider that the abuse of the privilege on this isolated occasion would justify an alteration in the rules governing the grant of such passes.

Mr. Osborne: But is my hon. Friend aware that this is not an isolated incident, and that the chairman of the local bench is a most responsible man who would not make such statements on an isolated case? Will my hon. Friend look into the matter again, please?

Mr. Ward: This is the first case of a man appearing before a civil court from that R.A.F. station, certainly in the last 12 months. The discipline there is generally thought to be very good. I can only assume that when the chairman made these remarks he was not fully informed about the nature of the passes which were available to these men.

Helicopters (Kenya)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will increase the number of helicopters available for use by the Army in Kenya.

Mr. Ward: We are not certain how far helicopters are suitable for use in this theatre, and I think we should wait and see how the Sycamore that has just arrived out there gets on.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is it true that there is only one helicopter in service there now, and can the hon. Gentleman say why it took such a long time to get this one

there? Is not he aware of the comments of Brigadier Thurlow on the desirability of increasing the number of helicopters to be used for evacuating the wounded and getting on with the offensive against Mau Mau in that theatre?

Mr. Ward: The reason for the delay has been mainly production difficulties, combined with the demands of Malaya. One helicopter has been asked for, and one has been supplied. I ask the hon. Member to realise that we have had considerable doubts about whether helicopters would be effective in Kenya. I ask him to wait a little while to see what happens in this experiment.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AIRCRAFT (BACKWARD-FACING SEATS)

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware that in the accident involving the destruction of a York aircraft on 22nd September last not a life was lost; that the 45 passengers were seated with their backs to the pilot; and whether, as this system of backward-facing seats is considered invaluable by Transport Command, he will make a further statement of his policy regarding safety regulations for civil aircraft.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The answer to the first and second parts of the Question is "Yes, Sir." With regard to the third part, I would remind the hon. Lady of the reply given to her by my predecessor on 3rd February. In addition to this I have also already called for a fresh examination of this matter in consultation with all parties concerned.

Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that I had looked for a more favourable reply from him than that from his predecessor because that only told me to wait? As there is considerable public interest in the matter, does the right hon. Gentleman hope to be able to make a statement soon?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This is an important matter and I share the hon. Lady's concern about it. It is also a somewhat complex one. I should not like to name a date but if the hon. Lady cares to put down a Question a little later on, I will do my best to answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPS (FIRE PROTECTION)

Captain Ryder: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps he is taking, arising out of the "Empire Windrush" disaster, to encourage the greater use of incombustible material in ship construction.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The major ship fires of recent years, including that in the "Empire Windrush," have been in ships built before the 1948 International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea came into operation. The Regulations applying this Convention to United Kingdom ships came into force in November, 1952. They require one of three methods of fire protection to be adopted in all new passenger ships, two of which provide for the use of incombustible materials. I have no evidence that would justify me in imposing further requirements, though naturally I welcome any additional precautions which owners may decide to adopt.

Captain Ryder: Will my right hon. Friend keep the matter in mind, because certain foreign countries are using this incombustible material, and if we are not careful we shall drop behind?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I appreciate the importance of the matter. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will himself appreciate that two of the three alternative methods to which I have referred involve the use of these materials.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBER'S SPEECH (CORRECTION)

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me an opportunity of drawing attention to an error in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings of the House for Monday last, 1st November.
During the debate on the Railways Reorganisation Scheme, in the fourth

paragraph in column 134 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, it is reported that I stated:
This Scheme, which the Transport Commission had been forced to produce, turns the wheel backwards. It is a reversion to the old ideas and ideals which were given voice to by an hon. Member whose constituency I cannot bring to mind.
Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) intervened and stated:
My constituency is Renfrew, West."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1954; Vol. 532, c. 134.]
I concluded from that that he felt that I had been referring to him. I corrected that immediately, and in the course of my correcting statement I mentioned the hon. Member whom I thought had made the statement, but, in fact, it was an error.
I now wish to make the correct statement. The statement which follows the intervention by the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West should, instead of mentioning the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin), read as follows:
No, it was a Tory Member—the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole)— who spoke even worse rubbish."*
and that is saying a lot.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the last words used by the hon. Member were in the report of his speech. I hope the matter is now clear beyond doubt.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Ordered,
That the motion relative to Standing Orders of which notice has been given by Mr. Henry Brooke may be made at the time of Public Business, notwithstanding that it relates in part to Standing Orders relating to Private Business.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

LOTTERIES

Mr. Anthony Barber: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorise the conduct on behalf of societies registered with the local authority of small lotteries for raising money for charitable, sporting and other purposes.
I cannot believe that there is any hon. Member of this House who will disagree with me when I say that the law relating to betting and lotteries today is both anomalous and completely out of sympathy with public opinion. On the one hand, there is the spectacle of millions of families throughout the land staking more than £70 million a year on football pools in the hope of winning anything up to £75,000 free of tax, and, indeed, each week during the football season nearly 10 million coupons are sent through the post. That is perfectly legal. On the other hand, take the case of a solitary clergyman who wants to raise a little money for his church. If he posts a book of raffle tickets to one of his churchwardens he becomes liable to a fine of £500, and if he is caught a second time he may be sent to prison.
It is well known to hon. Members that it is illegal for anybody, as the law stands at present, to sell a raffle ticket to someone other than a member of the club or society which promotes the raffle or lottery, unless the ticket is sold during the progress of a féte or similar entertainment. The result of this could be seen a few weeks ago in a rather amusing incident which occurred in Cornwall. The Bodmin Football Club was warned by the local police that if it continued to hold raffles at football matches it would be guilty of an offence and liable to prosecution. However, the people of Bodmin were not deterred. They found out that by reason of Section 23 of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, they could hold a raffle at a football match if only they ensured that it was merely an incident of a féte.
So, they held a féte. They had a few stalls and sideshows, including a dart board. Hon. Members may be surprised to hear that during the course of the afternoon's entertainment one of the items happened to be a football match between Bodmin Town and Minehead. By that simple device the raffle which

was previously illegal became legal, and the gate was doubled. Incidentally, I understand that thereafter the police were charged admission to the football match.
The present position is farcical and is making a mockery of the law. The result is that in many instances where the police have thought fit to bring a prosecution it is not the bewildered offender who is pilloried in the eyes of society, but the law itself. I must be rather careful. I have not been in the House many years and I do not want to offend the rules relating to Privilege, but when I was looking into this matter to begin with I could not help wondering how many hon. Members, when buying raffle tickets in their constituencies, ever paused to consider whether Sections 23 or 24 of the 1934 Act had been complied with. I do not think I dare take it any further than that.
I know it will be said that this is only one aspect of a far greater problem, and that the whole problem of betting, gaming and lotteries was considered recently for some two years by a Royal Commission. I agree with that, of course. But when one looks at the tangled skein of Acts of Parliament which passes for the law on these various topics and when one realises that the law has been built up almost haphazardly, so it would seem, over a period of more than 500 years, it is painfully obvious that it would be a most difficult task to try to put everything right in one fell swoop. Certainly, it is not a task for a private Member, and least of all for me.
However, there is no reason whatever why Parliament should not tackle the relatively simple problem of small lotteries which are promoted by churches, youth organisations, football clubs, cricket clubs and similar societies, many of which today are finding themselves in most serious financial difficulties. I know that there is not a single hon. Member who would like to see any of such organisations die, but from the information which I have received I am sure that, unless some help is given to them to enable them to increase their funds, they will die.
The Bill which I am asking the leave of the House to bring in would relax in three important respects the conditions which at present govern the promotion


of lotteries by clubs and societies. Before I mention these three relaxations, I should stress the fact that they would apply only to small lotteries, and only to small lotteries promoted for charitable purposes, the encouragement of athletic sports or games, or for the purpose of assisting a voluntary society neither established nor conducted for the purpose of private gain.
The three relaxations which this Bill contemplates are these. First, the Bill would enable tickets to be sold to non-members of a club. Everybody knows, in fact, that that is being done on a considerable scale today. If that became law, it would go some way towards bringing the present law into harmony with reality.
Secondly, the Bill would allow the use of the post, but with this important qualification. The post could not be used for sending tickets to non-members.
Thirdly, if this Bill became law it would allow the deduction of expenses which were actually incurred in the course of the conduct of the lottery, but that again would be subject to a qualification. The maximum which could be appropriated to expenses would be 5 per cent, of the proceeds.
It is obviously a matter of the first importance that these relaxations should not lead either to abuses or indeed to the excessive development of this particular type of gambling. The Bill will apply only to small lotteries, and the larger ones will still be governed as they are at present by the Act of 1934, but to ensure that it does apply only to small lotteries, there would be in the Bill itself certain additional restrictions of a new type. Obviously I cannot go into details at this stage, but, for instance, the price of a ticket would be restricted to 1s., and there would be a condition that no single prize should exceed £100. Perhaps most important of all, there would be a provision that a substantial proportion of the

proceeds should be devoted to the object for which it was promoted.
Finally, the society or club would have to be registered with the local authority. The purpose of that requirement would be to ensure that once a year each society or club should submit a simple return in respect of the lotteries which had taken place in the past year. It would be a return which could be inspected free of charge by any member of the public, and would be a very simple one, setting out the amount of the proceeds, the expenses and the amount applied to the purpose of the lottery.
I think I have almost reached the limit of traditional time allotted for this procedure and, therefore, I conclude by saying that the existing law is quite out of touch with reality. Anybody who goes around the country knows quite well that, day in and day out, it is being either ignored or circumvented by one or other of the rather comical devices such as the instance to which I have referred. The result of that is to bring the law into disrepute. Perhaps most important of all, it is an undoubted fact that the law on this topic is capable of amendment without much trouble, if this House so desires. For those reasons, I ask the House for leave to bring in the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Barber, Mr. Philip Bell, Mr. Mulley, Sir William Darling, Group Captain Wilcock and Dr. Reginald Bennett.

LOTTERIES BILL

"to authorise the conduct on behalf of societies registered with the local authority of small lotteries for raising money for charitable, sporting and other purposes," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th November, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]

Orders of the Day — FOOD AND DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 27th October.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 8.—(EXTENSION OF SECTION 14 OF PRINCIPAL ACT TO OTHER BUSINESSES.)

3.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): I beg to move, in page 8, line 45, to leave out from "section," to the end of line 4, on page 9.
This Amendment and the following Amendment, to page 9, line 6, are consequential Amendments on the Amendment to Clause 7, page 8, line 26, and I think the Committee will wish me to leave it at that.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I do not object to the Parliamentary Secretary saying that these Amendments are consequential, but, as the hon. Gentleman might have assumed, we are opposed to them for that reason. I want to make our position quite clear. What we complain about is that they preclude the possibility of the registration of catering establishments, and they put the police force in the place of the local authority. We think the power ought to lie with the local authority, and that registration ought to remain. I do not think I need elaborate the point, but we regard it as an unwarranted betrayal of the initial purpose of this Bill, and, further, I think there is a substantial point of constitutional propriety which arises on these Amendments.
After all, as we understand it, a noble Lord, Lord Woolton, is in charge of this Bill. It is common knowledge that Lord Woolton had considerable interests in the catering industry, and that he has played a distinguished part in it. When we had substantial Amendments before the Committee earlier, I asked from which quarter recommendations had been made and by whom, and we have not yet been told. We think that some constitutional issues are raised when the

Minister in charge of the Bill has had these well-recognised interests in this industry, and it is certainly very disquieting that it is in connection with this industry, and this industry alone, that this exception has been made. As far as we know, no recommendations have come from anywhere, apart from this particular section of the food trades.
However, I do not want to pursue this any further, because I rose to make an appeal to the Minister, and I make it with confidence because the Minister of Food now spends part of his time as Minister of Agriculture. In his latter capacity, he is committed to the principle of registration, which is an essential part of the marketing provisions for which he is responsible. I hope, therefore that the Minister will bring a fresh mind to bear on this question, because we do not wish to make the issue of clean food one of party politics. We have had such provocation that, if the Government insist at this late stage of the Bill in taking this course, that is really what they will be driving us to do.
I hope that we shall have a response from the right hon. Gentleman. I ask him whether he will undertake to reconsider this question, and whether, between now and Report stage, he will meet the point of view of my right hon. Friend and those of my hon. Friends who have taken part in the discussions on the Bill both in the House and in Committee so far, by reconsidering this question of the registration of catering establishments. If he will give us that assurance, which I hope he will be able to do, I am sure that we can proceed expeditiously with the remaining part of the Bill, but we take this opportunity to discuss with him what we regard as the essential issue now before the Committee.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): I was interested to hear the suggestion which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has just made. I cannot think that what is really in his mind is that if I have one more opportunity I shall succeed in convincing him and his hon. and right hon. Friends of the rightness of the course we have adopted here. I have no doubts about the wisdom of the course we have already announced, but if the hon. Gentleman feels that it would be helpful for us to have a talk I shall be delighted to see


him. Perhaps we can arrange a mutually convenient time.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us some hope that he will change his mind? The finest elements in the catering trade would like him to do so. Only the worst elements would like him to stand firm. We are pressing the claims of the restaurants which are conducted in a decent manner. I fail to see what good purpose would be served by a meeting if the Minister says that his mind is already closed.

To come to a meeting with one's mind closed means that the argument must be one-sided. To be consistent and to make a second protest against the Minister's attitude on this matter, I shall ask my hon. Friends to divide on the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided; Ayes, 196; Noes, 240.

Division No. 222.]
AYES
[3.51 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Monslow, W.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Moody, A. S.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gibson, C. W.
Morley, R.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Gooch, E. G.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Awbery, S. S.
Grey, C. F.
Mort, D. L.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moyle, A.


Balfour, A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon James (Llaneliy)
Murray, J. D.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Hale, Leslie
Nally, W.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hall, John T (Gateshead, W.)
Oldfield, W. H.


Bencs, C. R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oliver, G. H.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Hamilton, W W.
Oswald, T.


Benson, G.
Hannan, W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Beswick, F.
Hardy, E. A.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hargreaves, A
Pannell, Charles


Blackburn, F.
Hastings, S.
Paton, J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hayman F. H.
Pearson, A.


Boardman, H.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Porter, G.


Bowles, F. G.
Herbison, Miss M.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Brockway, A. F.
Hobson, C. R.
Proctor, W. T.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Holmes, Horace
Pryde, D. J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hoy, J. H.
Reeves, J.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Burke, W. A.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Callaghan, L. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Paneras, N.)


Carmichael, J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Ross, William


Chapman, W. D.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Chatwynd, G. R.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Clunie, J.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Coldrick, W.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Collick, P. H.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Collins, V. J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Craddook, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Snow, J. W.


Crossman, R. H. S
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Sorensen, R. W


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Keenan, W.
Sparks, J. A.


Daines, P.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Steele, T.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
King, Dr. H. M.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Kinley, J.
Strachey, Rt Hon. J.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lawson, G. M.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Deer, G.
Logan, D. G.
Swingier, S. T.


Dedds, N. N.
MacColl, J. E.
Sylvester, G. O.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mclnnes, J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McLeavy, F.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Timmons, J.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Usborne, H. C.


Fernyhough, E.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Viant, S. P.


Fienburgh, W.
Manuel, A. C.
Warbey, W. N.


Finch, H. J.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A
Watkins, T. E.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mason, Roy
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Follick, M.
Mayhew, C. P.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Foot, M. M.
Mellish, R. J.
West, D. G.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R
Wheeldon, W. E.




White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
Wyatt, W. L.


Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Yates, V. F.


Wilkins, W. A.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Willey, F. T.
Willis, E. G.



Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Rogers.




NOES


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Gower, H. R.
Mellor, Sir John


Alport, C. J. M.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Molson, A. H. E.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Moore, Sir Thomas


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Grimond, J.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Arbuthnot, John
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Neave, Airey


Baldwin, A. E.
Harden, J. R. E.
Nicholls, Harmar


Banks, Col. G.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Barber, Anthony
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Hay, John
Oakshott, H. D.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Osborne, C.


Bavins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Heath, Edward
Page, R. G.


Birch, Nigel
Higgs, J. M. C.
Partridge, E.


Bishop, F. P.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Black, C. W.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Perkins, Sir Robert


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Holland-Martin, C. J
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bowen, E. R.
Hollis, M. C.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Holt, A. F.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Hope, Lord John
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Pitman, I. J.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Powell, J. Enoch


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Horobin, I. M.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Bullard, D. G.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Profumo, J. D.


Bullus, Wing Commander E E
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N)
Ramsden, J. E.


Carr, Robert
Hughes-Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N J.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Channon, H.
Hurd, A. R.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Renton, D. L. M.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Robertson, Sir David


Cole, Norman
Johnson, Erie (Blackley)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Colegate, W. A.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Robson-Brown, W.


Conant, Maj Sir Roger
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Roper, Sir Harold


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Kaberry, D.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Russell, R. S.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Kerr, H. W.
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Crouch, R. F.
Lambton, Viscount
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Crowder, Sir John (Finehley)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Scott, R. Donald


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Davidson, Viscountess
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lindsay, Martin
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Deedes, W. F.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Snadden, W. McN.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Soames, Capt. C.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Longden, Gilbert
Speir, R. M.


Donner, Sir P. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Doughty, C. J. A.
McAdden, S. J.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
McCallum, Major D.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Duthie, W. S.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Storey, S.


Fell, A.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Finlay, Graeme
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Fisher, Nigel
Maclean, Fitzroy
Studholme, H. G.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Summers, G. S.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Foster, John
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Teeling, W.


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Gamer-Evans, E. H.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Glover, D
Marples, A. E.
Turner, H. F. L.


Godber, J. B.
Maudling, R.
Turton, R. H.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L C
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Gough, C. F. H.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Vane, W. M. F







Vaughan-Morgan, J K
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C
Wills, G.


Vosper, D. F.
Watkinson, H. A.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Wade, D. W.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)
Wood, Hon. R


Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)



Wall, Major Patrick
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Legh

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 6, leave out "those purposes," and insert:
purposes for which registration is required by virtue of the order."—[Mr. Amory.]

4.0 p.m.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: I beg to move in page 9, line 11, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."
In this Clause we are dealing with the extension of registration to all food businesses except those already covered by the 1938 Act—ice-cream and processed meats—the other exception being the catering trade. The operation of registration of food premises for the first time on an annual basis is a big operation. If registration is refused it means that the premises cannot be used for purposes of food businesses at all.
It seems only right, therefore, that there should be an automatic right of registration in the first place, and that thereafter the local authority should have the right to refuse to renew a registration when it has had an opportunity of inspecting the premises, and so on. I hope the Government will regard this as a reasonable Amendment.

Dr. Hill: It is intended here that, where an order is made extending registration, sufficient time shall be given for premises already used in the businesses to be brought up to the local authority's requirements. The present wording is "may," and, as it is our intention that this should be done, I suggest that the Committee accept the Amendment.

Mr. F. Blackburn: When, on a previous Amendment, we sought to change the word "may" to "shall" in regard to making regulations, the Minister also said that it was the intention to make regulations, but resisted the Amendment. Might we know the reason for the change?

Dr. Hill: What I said related to this particular proposition in this narrow context. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it should be so regarded.

Mr. Blackburn: But the Minister did say, in regard to that previous Amend-

ment, that it was the Government's intention to make the regulations. Therefore, we could not understand why he resisted the alteration of the word "may" to the word "shall." In this case he agrees to it.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: Would the Minister explain whether, by this Amendment, it is really intended to cut down, or cut out, the right of a local authority to refuse an application for registration? If that is so, it is once more rendering this question of registration absolutely innocuous. Either the local authority has the right to allow or to reject an application for registration—of course, on good grounds and no doubt on investigation and inquiry—or it has not. In my submission, the local authority is the proper body to determine this matter. Otherwise, I do not see how, with any safeguard or any protection, this is to be done.
If the Amendment is to be accepted, it is a whittling down process, a facade to get rid of the power of the local authority altogether, and is merely a further example of the Government's readiness and willingness to run away from one of the major purposes of this legislation, namely, registration for the protection of the interests of the public.

Mr. Willey: We are entitled to hear something more from the Parliamentary Secretary. We are really giving way all down the line. I repeat what I said earlier. This Bill was a considerable time in another place. There was adequate opportunity to raise these points, and, though the associations affected had every chance to do so, this is not a point which they raised.
This is a very important Amendment. We are not dealing here with the catering trade at all, but generally, and in regard to the food trades this is saying that there may be a perfectly good case for registration, but the Minister shall be obliged to make provision—and his successors shall be obliged. That is what we are worrying about. We have not much confidence in what the present Administration will do, but at some time


we shall have an Administration which will enthusiastically pursue the cause of clean food. This is a hamstringing Amendment.
As the Parliamentary Secretary knows quite well, the Bill as drafted leaves the provision to the discretion of the Minister. I am willing to leave this in the discretionary form, because I have some confidence that the present Administration will not remain much longer and that we shall have one with a more enlightened view about hygiene. I can understand the embarrassment of the Minister of Health. We might not express ourselves so emphatically were he in charge of the Bill, but when we have this unholy amalgam of Food and Agriculture coming to the House—and now to the Committee—at the very end of the Session, and attempting to tie the hands of future Administrations, it really is rather preposterous.
The Bill at present only says that it will be discretionary, and one can conceive of trades where there is a very good, straightforward case for registration, and no ground for exclusion or restriction regarding those at present in business. They would not seek it. This Amendment, however, by inserting the word "shall" puts the onus on the Minister. When we wanted earlier to put in the word "shall" the Parliamentary Secretary opposed us, but when it affects the trade interest he is the first to say, "Of course, we accept this. We shall have 'shall' and not 'may'"—because this is one of those subsections which might operate against a sectional interest.
We ask the Parliamentary Secretary to be fair. If it is to be discretionary one way let it also be discretionary the other way. If the burden on the Minister to do anything under this Bill is to be discretionary, then so should be his escape from doing something.

Dr. Hill: As the Committee will appreciate, this provision relates to new premises brought within the scope of registration by a new order. If registration has a purpose in relation to those premises, it is to make possible the raising of standards in those new premises. I think that so far we can be agreed. But at the moment of its introduction in relation to the new premises, if it be true that its purpose is to raise the standards in those kinds of premises, then there

will always be premises that fall below the standard.

Mr. George Darling: No.

Dr. Hill: If all premises conform to the standard of the regulations, then the introduction of registration is likely to be unnecessary. But if its purpose is to raise the standard or to make easier the raising of the standard in those new premises, then at the moment of inception of registration there will be premises that fall below the standard. If that be true, in all cases it will be appropriate for the order either to exclude or to restrict the power of the local authority to refuse applications for registration.
If, as we believe, that will be the position, I think it is right and proper that we should make it plain, as my hon. and gallant Friend seeks to do in this Amendment.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I am profoundly uneasy about this matter. The hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) seemed to think that all registrations of previously used premises ought to be allowed in the first place. If that is what he means, I cannot agree with him in the slightest. It seems to me that what the Minister is doing here is tying his own hands and those of the local authorities, and he implies a wholesale distrust of their powers, the way they exercise them and the standards they set up. He is going to oblige himself either to eliminate or to restrict their power to refuse registration.
If he is to do that, he has to do it by an order in general terms, and he may well be making an order which will have the effect of lowering the standard that some local authorities, at any rate, would like to enforce. I should have expected the Minister, if he was going to accept the Amendment, at least to tell us upon what lines he was intending to restrict, as he will have to restrict, the powers of local authorities. I should have expected him to tell us that this matter had been the subject of discussion with local authorities, or at least with their associations, that they were agreed in having their powers restricted in this way and that the matter had been fully and carefully considered.
I should have expected the hon. Gentleman to give the Committee an


indication of what he intends to do. He has completely failed to answer the questions put to him, the substance of which was: why did he want to make this matter obligatory? The obvious answer must be, "I propose to do so and so," and we should at least have been given a broad outline of what he wants. Nothing of the sort was said.
Listening to the hon. Gentleman, I was anxious lest he was going to accept what seems to me the appalling suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus, that the local authorities were not to be allowed to refuse registration. If that is what he means, it seems an entrenchment of their powers and an insult to their intelligence, which they do not deserve, and which they certainly would not accept. Failing a better explanation than we have had from the Parliamentary Secretary, the least we can do is to do our best to refuse this Amendment unless and until we are told, first, that the local authorities have been fully consulted, and secondly, what are the lines of the Government's policy.
Failing that, I can only regard it as another case in which the party opposite, after saying that they have a venerable respect for the traditions of local government, that they believe in decentralisation and that they think local authorities are of some importance to the country, show by what they do in Parliament by accepting this sort of Amendment that they mean nothing of the sort and that they are, in fact, Whitehall bureaucrats in the worst sense of the word.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I am not at all satisfied. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary, with all respect to him, is deliberately not being candid in this matter and that he is covering up something which is very deleterious to the interests of the public.
I have been studying the terminology of the Clause since I spoke last, and I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman this question. If what he now says is so urgent as he indicated—I think, with his tongue in his cheek—how is it that the word "may," which has been in this Clause so long, has suddenly become objectionable, and the word "shall" has to be substituted for it? There is a great deal of difference, in a particular context,

between "shall" and "may," and the Parliamentary Secretary is asking the Committee to do something which is almost diametrically opposite to what the Clause already does with the word "may."
In face of that contradiction, that volte face, that retreat, we are entitled to know why this is being done, what pressure has been placed upon the Government since the text was first put into the Bill a year ago to influence the Government to make this alteration. I should have thought that, apart from any other objections, of which there are many, this would introduce confusion into the machinery of the Bill. Surely it is essential that the functions and powers of the local authorities should be clear. The acceptance of this Amendment would throw chaos into the mechanism of the Bill.
The Bill starts by pretending that the local authorities are to have certain powers. Then the Parliamentary Secretary comes to the Committee and says, "We made a mistake. We regret that the local authorities were given that power. We intend to take it from them. We intend to introduce the eliminating word, the destroying word, 'shall' for 'may'." That would turn the whole of this provision completely upside down and render it innocuous.
Surely we are entitled to an explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to come along with a chubby face and a hopeful aspect, thinking that he can suddenly throw this change on to this side of the Committee and get away with it. He can do nothing of the sort. We rumbled him long before he stood up to speak. I can tell him that he is merely being true to type when he does what he has done. There is this confusion with regard to the local authorities. It is downright interference with the local authorities. It is not merely making confusion of the powers they are supposed to have. It is not merely emasculating their powers, but it is downright, deliberate interference with the local authorities, and—what is worse—it is political interference.
The Parliamentary Secretary, having risen to speak when he did, unprepared and, no doubt, completely dismayed at what he is doing, has now had an oppor-


tunity, through my second intervention, of thinking of something better than he told the Committee before. We ask him to give us at least an intelligent explanation of what he seeks to do, and if he does not, I ask my Front Bench to take him into the Division Lobby on this dubious Amendment.

Captain Duncan: May I appeal to the reasonable Members of the Opposition, particularly the Co-operative Members? Let us take, for instance, the meat trade. When this Bill becomes law, the Minister will announce that all meat traders must be registered. This subsection says, in relation to premises used for this purpose, before the day there will be certain restrictions on the local authorities' discretion to register. Let me remind hon. Members of what Section 14 of the 1938 Act says:
… no premises shall be used …"—
let us insert the meat trade—
unless they are registered under this Section for that purpose by the local authority. …
If they cannot be registered, or are refused their original application, they have to close down. The co-operative societies' butchers' shops and private butchers' shops would be all closed down, without any chance of improving their premises. All I want is to give them that chance to improve their premises, by restriction of the original application but not in renewals of the application.
Subsection (2, b) deals only with the original application and not with subsequent renewals. It seems to me to be only reasonable, in this case, in the interests of the traders, whether they are meat traders, or other traders, that they

should have, first, the chance of automatic registration, and then of having to put their house in order, unless they are to be refused a renewal in further years.

Mr. Norman Dodds: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that if the Co-operative movement subscribed to what he said, I would resign from it today?

Mr. G. Darling: I should like to put, very briefly, the point of view of the Co-operative movement. We wholeheartedly support the idea of registration of all premises, including catering premises, and I am very much surprised that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, whose views about agricultural marketing are based entirely on the principle of registration, should have supported the sell-out to the catering interests in the way he has done. I am really ashamed of him.
We believe that all premises should be registered and that the Bill as drafted gives sufficient discretionary power to the Minister in these marginal cases. Through the medium of the local government officials, he can say "We cannot register your premises until some improvements have been made." The discretion is there now. The kind of premises one thinks of in this regard can easily be put right. It is the sub-standard premises we are concerned about. They ought not to be allowed to continue trading.

Question put, "That 'may' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 246.

Division No. 223.]
AYES
[4.25 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Brockway, A. F.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Burke, W. A.
Deer, G.


Awbery, S, S.
Burton, Miss F. E.
Delargy, H. J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Dodds, N. N.


Balfour, A.
Callaghan, L. J.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John(W. Bromwich)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Carmichael, J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Bellenger, Rt, Hon. F. J.
Chapman, W. D.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)


Bence, C. R.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Clunie, J.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Benson, G.
Coldrick, W.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Beswick, F.
Collick, P. H.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Collins, V. J.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Blackburn, F.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fernyhough, E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Fienburgh, W.


Boardman, H.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Finch, H. J.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Daines, P.
Fletcher, Erie (Islington, E.)


Bowles, F. G.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H
Follick, M.




Foot, M. M.
Logan, D. G.
Ross, William


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McGhee, H. G.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mclnnes, J.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Gibson, C. W.
McLeavy, F.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Gooch, E. G.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Skeffington, A. M.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Grey, C F.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Snow, J. W.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Sorensen, R. W.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Manuel, A. C.
Sparks, J. A.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Steele, T.


Hamilton, W. W.
Mason, Roy
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hannan, W.
Mayhew, C. P.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hardy, E. A.
Mellish, R. J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Hargreaves, A.
Mitchison, G. R.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Hastings, S.
Monslow, W.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E


Hayman, F. H.
Moody, A. S.
Swingler, S. T.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Morley, R.
Sylvester, G. O.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Herbison, Miss M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hobson, C. R.
Mort. D. L.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E)


Holman, P.
Moyle, A.
Timmons, J.


Holmes, Horace
Mulley, F. W.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Houghton, Douglas
Murray, J. D.
Usborne, H. C.


Hoy, J. H.
Nally, W.
Warbey, W. N.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Oldfield, W. H.
Watkins, T. E.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oliver, G. H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, G.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oswald, T.
Weitzman, D.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
West, D. G.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pannell, Charles
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Paton, J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Pearson, A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Peart, T. F.
Wigg, George


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Willey, F. T.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Popplewell, E.
Williams, David (Neath)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Porter, G.
Williams, Rev. Llyweryn (Abertillery)


Jones, Rt. Hon. A, Creech
Price J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Prootor, W. T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Reeves, J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Keenan, W.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Willis, E. G.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


King, Dr. H. M.
Rhodes, H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon, A


Kinley, J.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wyatt, W. L.


Lawson, G. M.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Yates, V. F.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)



Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Rogers George (Kensington, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor.




NOES


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Carr, Robert
Finlay, Graeme


Alport, C. J. M.
Cary, Sir Robert
Fisher, Nigel


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Channon, H.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Arbuthnot, John
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Foster, John


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Cole, Norman
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Baldwin, A. E.
Colegate, W. A.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Banks, Col. C.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Barber, Anthony
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Glover, D.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Godber, J. B.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Gough, C. F. H


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gower, H. R.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Crouch, R. F.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Crowder, Sir John (Finehley)
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Grimond, J.


Birch, Nigel
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Bishop, F. P.
Davidson, Viscountess
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Black, C. W.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hall. John (Wycombe)


Bowen, E. R.
Deedes, W. F.
Harden, J. R. E.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A
Digby, S. Wingfield
Harris, Reader (Heslon)


Brarthwaite, Sir Gurney
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Donner, Sir P. W.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hay, John


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Bullard, D. G.
Duthie, W. S.
Heath, Edward


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Higgs, J. M. C.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Campbell, Sir David
Fell, A.
Hirst, Geoffrey







Holland-Martin, C. J
Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Russell, R. S.


Hollis, M. C.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Holt, A. F.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Marples, A. E.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Horobin, I. M.
Maudling, R.
Scott, R. Donald


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Mellor, Sir John
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Molson, A. H. E.
Snadden, W. McN.


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Soames, Capt. C.


Hurd, A. R.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Speir, R. M.


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Mott-Radclyffe C. E.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Hughes-Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Neave, Airey
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Iremonger, T. L.
Nicholls, Harmar
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Storey, S.


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Kaberry, D.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Keeling, Sir Edward
Oakshott, H. D.
Studholme, H. G.


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co Antrim, N.)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Kerr, H. W.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S
Taylor, William (Bradford N.)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Osborne, C.
Teeling, W.


Lambton, Viscount
Page, R. G.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lancaster, Col. C. G
Partridge, E.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Langford-Holt, J. A
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Leather, E. H. C.
Perkins, Sir Robert
Touche, Sir Gordon


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pete, Brig. C. H. M.
Turner, H. F. L.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Turton, R. H.


Lindsay, Martin
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Vane, W. M. F.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Pitman, I. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Powell, J. Enoch
Vosper, D. F.


Longden, Gilbert
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wade, D. W.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Prefumo, J. D.
Wall, Major Patrick


McAdden, S. J.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


McCallum, Major D.
Ramsden, J. E.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


McCorquodale, Rt. Hen. M. S.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Watkinson, H. A.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Remnant, Hon. P.
Wellwood, W.


McKibbin, A J.
Renton, D. L. M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Wills, G.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Robertson, Sir David
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wood, Hon. R.


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Robson-Brown, W.



Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Roper, Sir Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Sir Cedric Drewe and




Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.


Question put, and agreed to.

Word "shall" there inserted.

4.30 p.m.

Dr. Hill: I beg to move in page 9, line 17, to leave out from "fourteen," to the third "and," in line 19.
I think that, together with this Amendment, Sir Charles, it would be convenient to take the Amendments in page 9, lines 21 and 24.

The Chairman: Yes.

Dr. Hill: Although these Amendments touch upon the subject of registration, the issue is not controversial. One form of registration—that of butter and margarine factories under Section 34 of the 1938 Act—has been a non-revocable registration, and from all angles it has been of no value. There will be power under the Bill to extend registration to other premises, including these. That would be

a revocable registration, and in the circumstances it is suggested that this useless provision should disappear.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 9, line 21, leave out from "fourteen," to "and," in line 22.

In page 9, line 24, at end insert:
Where an order made under this section repeals the whole or any part of the said paragraphs, section thirty-eight of the Interpretation Act, 1889 (which relates to the effect of repeals), shall apply as if the order were an Act.—[Dr. Hill.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Willey: I rise only to say that the statement made by the Minister in response to the request which I made was very disappointing. I hope that he


will have a more open mind when we meet him. I have raised a very serious question in relation to this matter. We ought to be told more about the Woolton millions; who contributes to that fund, and how much the "dirty food lobby" has contributed.
These are very grave matters. Lord Woolton's interests in the catering industry are well known, and I pay tribute to the part he has played in it, but it is a matter of some constitutional importance when an exception is made, as it is here, at this very late stage in the Session, in connection with a matter affecting only one of the food trades. I shall say no more about it than that I hope that when we meet the Minister he will have a more open mind.
The other matter is less controversial. I merely ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the present registration provided for in Section 14 of the principal Act is in any way impaired by the Bill. As I understand, it is not so impaired, but as representations have been made I should like to have his assurance in the matter.

Dr. Hill: I can give the assurance that nothing we are doing impairs registration under Section 14 of the original Act. As regards the hon. Member's first point, I hope that when he reads his words tomorrow he will appreciate that he made an unfounded statement.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(LICENSING OF SALE OF FOOD ELSEWHERE THAN IN PREMISES.)

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 10, line 3, to leave out from "regulations," to the end of line 7.
On this occasion, also, I am in a less controversial vein. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that the purpose of the Amendment is to obtain an explanation of the purpose of the words which it seeks to omit. I appreciate at once that the word "may" is mentioned, although we are in some trepidation lest, on the Report stage, we may find that "may" is left out and "shall" is put in. At the moment it is only discretionary, and I merely ask why permission is made for possible exemption.

Dr. Hill: Clause 9 provides that street traders may be licensed. It is clearly desirable that in such licensing careful attention should be paid to the storage of food by street traders. The intention is that where the storage position is amply covered by licensing there is no need for the separate registration of the premises as such.

Mr. Willey: In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Donald Chapman: Before we part with the Clause, can the Parliamentary Secretary say what the Government have in mind in subsection (1, a)? Many of us have considerable doubts about the way in which many perishable foods, subject to infection by flies, are still exposed on stalls. I was wondering whether, at this stage, the Parliamentary Secretary would care to say what the Government are going to recommend or issue as a code for guidance to local authorities in making regulations governing stalls.

Dr. Hill: I think I should detain the Committee too long if I said very much on this matter. The power is needed to make regulations covering this particular aggravation of the general problem. Bearing in mind the special hazards in relation to certain foods, and as they are aggravated in the circumstances contemplated in subsection (1, b), it was thought that there should be ad hoc regulations directed towards the particular problem.

Mr. Mitchison: I am a little puzzled. Section 14 of the original Act provides for the registration of premises and, of course, one would say off-hand that premises did not include vehicles, stalls and other places, which are what we are trying to consider here. According to the definition in the Bill, premises apparently includes land. I should have thought it doubtful whether, in those circumstances, this provision was necessary. Perhaps the Solicitor-General would tell us why it is necessary.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. May we have a reply to the question I have just asked, Sir Rhys?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I have nothing to do with that. I have already put the Question.

Mr. Mitchison: We ought to hear something about it.

Clause 10.—(PROVISIONS RELATING TO MILK.)

Mr. Michael Higgs: I beg to move, in page 10, line 39, at the end, to insert:
(a) for requiring cream or separated milk to be subjected to a specified treatment before being sold for human consumption.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think it would be convenient to consider with this Amendment the hon. Member's Amendment, in page 11, line 5.

Mr. Higgs: This is the Clause that gives power to the Minister to make regulations regulating the sale and treatment of milk before it is sold. I am told that there has been discovered a portion of territory uncovered either by this Bill or previous legislation. In specified areas, which now include more than half the country, where only designated milk may be sold, of course there are powers to require full milk before it is sold to be treated—pasteurised, and so on; but in respect of anybody who wishes to sell skimmed or separated milk there are no powers.
Both sides of the trade, the producers and the retailers, feel that it would be much better that there should be powers to regulate not only full milk but also separated milk, and these two Amendments would enable the Minister to make such regulations for separated milk, and also for cream, which I believe is not covered in all circumstances by the existing legislation.

Dr. Summerskill: I hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment. It is a curious anomaly that milk can be subjected to treatment and rendered harmless to human beings but that cream is not subjected to any treatment and, therefore, constitutes a danger. I must plead guilty. I feel I am responsible for this omission. In the days when I had the great honour of piloting through the

House the Milk (Special Designations) Bill, which I think finally cleaned the milk supply of this country, cream did not come to my mind.

Mr. G. Darling: There was no cream to mind.

Dr. Summerskill: I plead that excuse. Most of us had forgotten what cream was like. I remember standing at that Box day after day discussing that Measure, but cream never entered my mind. I think that now we have some cream again something should be done about it.

4.45 p.m.

Dr. Hill: As the right hon. Lady has suggested, my hon. Friend has made an excellent suggestion that gives a power that is needed and that is likely to be needed more as specified areas are extended. I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: I should like to say a word of welcome to this Amendment because I remember a time, 30 years ago, when in children's hospitals and the children's wards of hospitals there were a good many cases of surgical tuberculosis due to tubercular milk. It affected the bones and joints of many small children, and kept children in hospital for long periods, and many were left with permanent deformities. Although not every case was due to the bovine type of tuberculosis, there was in the majority of such cases an enormous amount of discomfort and pain.
Now, because milk to a large extent comes from tuberculin-tested cows or is pasteurised, matters are very different, and we are very glad to note that; but what we want is to eliminate surgical tuberculosis of bovine origin entirely, and this Amendment will help in that final elimination from this country.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir Leslie Plummer: I beg to move, in page 10, line 41, after "description," to insert:
(being a description which in the opinion of the Ministers making the regulations ascribes to the milk a quality higher than the minimum quality prescribed for milk under section ten of the said Act).
What the Minister is seeking to do is to ensure that there are specified standards for milk. That is a right and


proper thing, and we are all for it. However, he will be aware that there are certain breeds of cows in this country which enjoy the ability to produce a higher quality of milk than ordinary quality milk, and for that higher quality milk special prices are paid. I am referring to the Channel Islands breed, and I think the South Devon breed is another. It is for milk described in the Bill as of "specified normal constituents," or, as we should say in ordinary words, better quality milk, that greater prices are paid.
What I am seeking to do is to prevent anybody from passing on inferior milk in the place of superior milk and of using for it a description of milk which does not tally with the milk produced from the Channel Islands cows. Let me give an example of what could happen. A dairyman may find that, through no fault of his own, he is unable to supply all of his customers with Channel Islands milk, and may be tempted to substitute for that Channel Islands milk milk taken, let us say, from Freisian cows. That would be a wrong thing to do, and, perhaps, the dairyman could be prosecuted for doing it. I do not know whether that is so, but the Amendment would strengthen the powers of control and, at the same time, protect the housewives and make sure that they get the sort of milk they order.

Dr. Hill: As I understand the hon. Gentleman's case, it is to give precision to the words used for an agreed objective, and I agree with him that the words in the Clause, "any specified description," may be too loose for the purpose intended. I therefore invite the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Captain Duncan: I have an Amendment on the Notice Paper in almost the same terms, and its object, as my hon. Friend has said, is to define more carefully the kinds of milk concerned and the words in the Bill, "any specified description." In making his regulations covering milk of any specified description, the Minister may be unfair to the type of milk which we have in mind—that over the specified amount of butter fat such as Channel Islands milk, which, as can be seen from the Dairy Show records last week, is giving 5 to 7 per cent. butter fat as against the Minister's probable specified description of 3·7 or

4 per cent. butter fat. It was to help farmers and others who are producing this higher quality milk that my Amendment was tabled. I therefore support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer).

Mr. Anthony Hurd: I support the Amendment, but I do not endorse the rather loose phrases which the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) used in differentiating between different types of milk. He spoke of "superior and inferior milk." It is true that Channel Islands milk is richer in butter fat than some other milk and that some people are prepared to pay more because of that. Their preference should be safeguarded, and the Amendment will safeguard it; but not everybody chooses to drink milk with a high butter fat. In the United States and Canada there is a growing demand for what is called fat-free milk. We may come to that here. I should not say that we are trying to differentiate between inferior and superior milk; we are differentiating between different types of milk and safeguarding the consumers' choice

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 10, line 45, after "milked," to insert:

(i) at any place not registered in pursuance of regulations under that Act as a dairy farm; or
(ii).

We have been thinking again about this and the next Amendment. The purpose is quite clear; it is to give the necessary powers where an animal is in transit. It is thought by some people, however, that in its present form it would cover circumstances, such as the beef farm, which it was never intended to cover. With permission, we will withdraw this Amendment and the next Amendment in order to re-examine the wording and to give it the precision which we want it to have, and we will then put down another Amendment for the Report stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: In page 11, line 2, leave out from "is," to the end of line 3, and to insert "so registered."—[Dr. Hill.]

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 11, line 4, to leave out "so obtained," and to insert:
to which regulations in force under the last foregoing paragraph apply.
This is a purely drafting Amendment to make it clear that the power to require the staining of milk applies only where the milk is prohibited under paragraph (b) of the subsection.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 11, line 5, at end, insert:
(2) Paragraph (a) of the foregoing subsection so far as it relates to cream shall be without prejudice to the power of the Ministers under Section three of this Act to make regulations applying to cream.—[Mr. Higgs.]

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 11, line 12, after "purposes," to insert "of paragraph (c)."
This is a drafting Amendment. It is intended to refer only to paragraph (c) of subsection (1), to which the definition would apply.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Duncan: I beg to move, in page 11, line 36, to leave out subsection (4), and to insert:
(4) Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of Section nine of the Act of 1950 (which prohibits a person from selling adulterated milk or having it in his possession for the purpose of sale) shall have effect as if after the words "or have in his possession for the purpose of sale," there were inserted the words "or deposit for collection for sale.
This Amendment raises an interesting point, and I am not quite sure that I have the answer to it. The milk farmer takes his churns to the road-end and leaves them there. Later in the day a lorry arrives and the churns are either emptied into a tank or are taken away, or a retailer comes along and picks up the churns, the milk having been sold to him by the Milk Marketing Board.
With that background, the sampler comes into the picture. He is entitled to take samples of milk at any stage in its production and transit or at any stage in the wholesale or retail. Sometimes he tries to take a sample out of the churn. It has been found, in practice, that the sampler is in difficulty in discovering who is the owner of the milk at that point. One defence for the farmer could be that he intended to take the churns back to the farm to feed the milk to the pigs, in

which case there would be no sale and the sampler could not bring a charge against him on the grounds that the milk had been adulterated. Another defence could well be that the farmer had left the churns there and somebody else had put in the water. There have been difficulties in law in pursuing this matter of adulterated milk in churns at the road end.
The suggestion in the Amendment is that the farmer should lose control of the milk the moment the churn is at the collecting point. I believe that this would clear up a difficult point which I understand has been the subject of various court decisions, and I believe that it would make it fairer for the farmers. The method employed by the Government under the Clause is to say, "If you seal your churn you have a defence"; but the difficulty, I am told by the National Farmers' Union, is that it will be impracticable to induce farmers in every case to seal their churns. It is not practicable as a matter of farming procedure to seal the churns. In any case, the seal might be broken by someone else.
The object of the Amendment is to try to clear up this doubtful situation and to help the sampler. If the sampling officer wished to take milk from a churn at that point, he should come along the road at a time when he knew the farmer would be putting out the churns in the morning and he could take a sample while the farmer was still there. Obviously, he cannot do that at every farm, but, in fact, he does not try to do so. He may sometimes take the sample out of the tank later, when it is definitely in the ownership of the Milk Marketing Board.
It seems to me that it would be clearer in law and easier for the farmer if the sampling officer were on the spot when the churns were put out by the farmer so that there could be no doubt about it. I believe that my Amendment has the support of the farming community.

5.0 p.m.

Dr. Hill: I recognise that the position as outlined by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) is difficult, but the effect of his Amendment would be to put on the prosecution the onus, in the case of a churn at a road-end, of proving that the farmer had deposited adulterated milk for collection for sale. We have given


anxious thought to this matter. It was intended, I understand, that the existing law should define possession, so as to secure that the churn at the road-end was still, in law, in possession of the farmer. The law went a step further, and in Section 71 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, provided a defence to which I will refer in a moment.
My hon. and gallant Friend said that the courts had put another interpretation on possession. After anxious thought, we have reached the conclusion that the only effective way to do this is to regard the churn at the lane-end as still in the possession of the farmer, leaving him the defence of Section 71 (2) of the Food and Drugs Act, which states:
It shall be a defence … to prove that the churn or other vessel in which the milk was contained was effectively closed and sealed at the time when it left his possession, but had been opened before the person by whom the sample was taken had access to it.
I know the difficulty about the sealing of churns, but recently the practice of sealing churns had grown.
On balance—I put it no higher than that—I think that public health demands that possession for this purpose shall be deemed to be that of the farmer, even if the churn is at the road-end. In an Amendment which we shall be discussing shortly, in order to remove all possible doubt about the defence to which I have referred, section 71 (2) of the Food and Drugs Act is reinstated in this Bill. That will remove any doubt that there has been any change in the defence.
In the circumstances, and bearing in mind the difficulty, I ask my hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw the Amendment on the assurance that we have considered it most carefully, we recognise the difficulty, but see no way other than this of making the law really effective.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: I tabled an Amendment designed to achieve the same objective, but especially to deprive the farmer of the defence that someone else has interfered with the churn on the roadside. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I gave that argument now, as it is related to this point.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman cannot elaborate on that

Amendment, because it has not been selected, and, therefore, he cannot deal with it.

Mr. Pargiter: Then I will confine myself to the Amendment which has been moved. The Minister held to the defence which the farmer has that someone else has interfered with the churn after he had sealed it. What, in practice, is likely to happen? If someone interferes with a churn of milk, that means that he will break the seal to extract milk from it and replace it with water. The defence is not a good defence, and I am surprised that the Minister wants to provide that defence to this particular Clause.
Once we have defined that the milk remains in the possession of the farmer until it is collected, it seems to me that the responsibility is the farmer's and must remain with the farmer to see that the milk is not adulterated in any way. I think that, in spite of what the Minister has said, the onus of proof is still put on the prosecution because the farmer will say that the milk left the farm sealed and that he can call his milkers and others to say that it was effectively sealed before it left the farm.
What is to stop the farmer himself, after having sold the milk, or someone on his behalf, breaking the seal and adulterating the milk before it is deposited at the roadside? The defence and the prosecution are put in a difficult position as a result of this defence, and I do not think that it should be permitted. I think, however, that the Amendment should be carried because it will define, first of all, the question of possession, and we can go on from that to define the question of the farmer's responsibility.

Captain Duncan: I recognise that this is a difficult question. I was not certain that I had the right answer, but I think that it is a point which requires consideration. I am not at all satisfied that the law as laid down in the 1950 Act and in this Bill will operate satisfactorily. I hope that between now and the Report stage my hon. Friend will have another look at this matter and consider whether he can devise something to help the sampler, and to make clear to the farmer where his responsibility begins and ends. In that case, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. G. Darling: I do not want to enter into the merits of the discussion, but I want the Parliamentary Secretary to understand that we have noted that it is his view that the farmer's responsibility for his products ends when they leave the farm.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'where' in line 41, stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 11, line 41, to leave out from "but," to the end of line 47, and to insert:
nothing in this subsection shall be taken as affecting anything in subsection (2) of section seventy-one of the principal Act (which provides a defence on a charge in respect of milk of which a sample is taken after the milk has left the defendant's possession).
This Amendment deals with an associated point. Now that it has been made abundantly clear what possession is deemed to be, we turn to the defence. Our first effort was to re-writ the defence, to put it in other words, and to leave its essence unchanged. On reflection, we thought that it would be better actually to repeat the words of Section 71 (2) of the Act in order not to leave any ambiguity and to avoid the suggestion that we had sought in any way to vary this defence.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey), I would suggest to the Committee that when we take steps in legislation to have it deemed to be in a man's possession, although, in fact, it would not be physically in that man's possession, it is not unreasonable that a defence of the kind that I read to the Committee earlier should be open to anyone so prosecuted.

Mr. Mitchison: I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us this time in whose possession the milk would be if it was not in that of the farmer and if this Clause were not there.

Dr. Hill: I take this opportunity of saying to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that when I did not rise earlier I intended no discourtesy, but I did not want to disturb the speedy rhythm which was beginning to develop. In regard to his latest question, we are dealing with milk at the road-end. That milk is deemed to be in the possession of the farmer. I have not seen the precise point of difficulty to which the hon. and

learned Gentleman refers. This is milk which is subject to sampling, and under the Bill it will be deemed to be in his possession. If I have not clearly understood the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, I shall be grateful if he will put it again.

Mr. Mitchison: I am much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for answering the question about what he said on the previous matter. I am not certain that this is necessary. I should have thought that if the farmer had left the churn at the roadside to be collected later by the dairy company, it should remain, if in anyone's possession, in possession of the farmer until collection. I see that the Solicitor-General is here, and I feel that this is one of the matters on which he might give us his advice.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): Will the hon. and learned Member be good enough to take my assurance that, attractive as his view is, there is authority to the contrary?

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, in page 11, line 47, at the end, to add:
(5) The Ministers may make regulations for controlling the use of milk churns, milk bottles and milk crates and for prohibiting or regulating the use of such articles by any person without the consent of the owner and for requiring any person who obtains permission or control of such articles to take reasonable care of them and not to retain them for an unreasonable time or wilfully to destroy or damage them.
This Amendment, which is self-explanatory, seeks to protect the consuming public against the irresponsible and careless person who misuses churns, milk bottles and other receptacles which are used for milk and who by so doing endangers the health of the public. Not only can there be danger to the health of the public, but the authorities concerned with cleaning these receptacles tell me that they are caused a great deal of inconvenience, that it takes much longer to clean these receptacles and that all kinds of different bacteriacides have to be used in order effectively to cleanse them.
A similar provision was contained in a Defence Regulation. If it was necessary to put it in a Defence Regulation and to protect the public in those days, why is it necessary to omit it today? I therefore ask the Minister to reconsider the matter with a view to embodying this provision in the Bill.

Dr. Hill: I agree with the right hon. Lady that a great deal of trouble and difficulty, and, possibly, even danger—but we are more concerned with the trouble and difficulty—is caused by the use to which milk bottles, for example, are put. I understand that they are used for a variety of purposes in connection even with the domestic operation concerned with the "home perm." We have discussed this question with the trade, who for some time pressed upon us something of the kind that the right hon. Lady includes in her Amendment. But the trade has, with us, faced the difficulties and does not now press us to do what the right hon. Lady asks.
How could a provision of this kind be enforced? This is no party point. None of us wants to impose requirements that cannot be fulfilled without a whole system of domestic inspection and right of entry that would be intolerable to us all. I appreciate the point that the right hon. Lady has in mind, and I am glad that she has made it, for perhaps the reasons which she and I have given today may do something in this direction. I suggest, however, that to empower the making of regulations which by their very nature, could not be enforced without domestic snooping, is something that the Committee generally would not wish to do.

Mr. Mitchison: The Parliamentary Secretary has forgotten the churn. Few people have heads so large or so hairy that a churn is required for the domestic operation to which he alluded. Generally speaking, people do not keep churns in their houses, so that any snooping about churns probably would not be of a domestic character. On the other hand, churns might be misused. I am very glad that the Minister of Health is present, and perhaps I can give him an illustration.
5.15 p.m.
There are some cottages in my constituency which depend upon churns for their domestic water. Water for drinking has for years been sent down regularly in churns to these cottages. The water arrangements are not sufficiently developed in this country and in that part of it for anything else to be done. I would rather that water was provided in a proper way, that it did not go into milk churns and that the churns were kept for the solitary purpose of containing milk.
I should have thought there was no harm in seeing that that was done.
All that the Minister is being asked to do is, not necessarily to make regulations, but not to preclude himself from making them. If he does not object to making regulations about churns, let him make them about churns. That will not oblige him to make them about bottles or to enter into the intricacies of permanent waving. I can see difficulties about that, but that is no reason to deny himself a power which has proved necessary in the past—otherwise it would not have remained in the Defence of the Realm Regulations—and which probably still is necessary.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: I am sorry that the Amendment has not been accepted. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary knows, I suggested putting down an Amendment to deal with milk bottles and he assured me that the trade already had power to deal with the waste of milk bottles which now goes on.
It is not only the trade that is affected by the misuse of milk bottles. In my capacity as a farmer engaged upon production which requires a lot of casual labour, when I get casual labour for fruit picking or any other purpose I find milk bottles thrown all over the countryside. In addition, weekend parties from motor cars have their picnics on the roadside, and the most convenient place to throw these bottles seems to be in my hayfield or cornfield. Not only is this a nuisance, but it is extremely dangerous to stock when the bottles are broken.
I suggest that the trade should take steps to try to obviate this very big loss, which runs into a high figure each year. I should have thought that if the consumer was charged a halfpenny more for a bottle of milk and had the halfpenny refunded on returning the bottle in a clean or semi-clean condition, some of the waste would be stopped. I am sorry that something cannot be done to try to prevent this waste and danger.

Mr. Coldrick: I wish it were possible to devise some means of ensuring that milk bottles were used for their original purpose. From my experience with the distributive organisations, I know the enormous cost involved in distribution as a result of the


wastage caused by carelessness in the handling of bottles. But while I appreciate that so far, at any rate, it has been impossible in large organisations to do anything to ensure that the bottles are properly used, I believe that attention should be paid to the churns. I am not a medical man, but I believe that far more infection is caused through churns than by any other form of milk distribution.
Large-scale dairies, of course, have all the facilities for sterlisation, but I have been astonished to find that churns frequently go direct from small farms to hospitals. While it may be possible to ensure cleanliness in the case of bottles, if farms send churns direct to hospitals and the milk is scooped out into other receptacles, one can take it for granted that analysis by a good laboratory subsequently would show that large colonies of bacteria had developed in the churn. It ought to be possible for regulations to be drafted to ensure that churns are used properly and thus prevent this kind of infection.

Dr. Stross: I want to suggest that some method should be contemplated in order to give some protection to the special interests concerned. For example, the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) has outlined the position in agriculture, and then we ought also to consider the trade itself. I have been informed that one of the most difficult things to get rid of from milk bottles is paraffin, and that to do so is a costly business. If it is obvious that paraffin has been put into a bottle, then it is not a suitable vehicle for milk. It needs special washing and cleansing.
I do not know whether a great deal of the misuse of bottles is not due to the fact that people are ignorant of the way they should behave towards these containers, and whether it might not be possible to put some wording on the glass container itself in the process of manufacture warning the public against the misuse of these bottles and the penalties that can be imposed for such an offence. Their attention could be drawn to it in that way.
Lastly, may I say that the words proposed to be inserted are interesting, particularly when they describe what should be done? The Amendment speaks of

… prohibiting or regulating the use of such articles by any person without the consent of the owner …
One of the most interesting as well as romantic uses of milk bottles is by boys knocking the caps off and putting a mouse into the milk. I find that heavy penalties are imposed on dairymen and on the owners of sterilising plants because it is assumed that the mouse got into the milk when sterilising was being done. Although we are assured by engineers that it is physically impossible for that to happen, heavy fines are again and again imposed in county after county, whether on such organisations as the co-operative societies or private enterprise. I cannot help mentioning this fact, because it might come to the attention of schoolchildren and they might leave the milk bottles alone.

Dr. Hill: Perhaps it would be convenient if I said a word now to help the Committee. The debate has largely centred on milk bottles, and the Dairymen's Association with them, but the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick) have raised the question of churns. I wonder if it will satisfy the Committee on the subject of churns if I undertake to look into the matter. That would enable us to pass on to the next Amendment.

Dr. Summerskill: The Parliamentary Secretary has not satisfied us, for this reason. The argument he advanced that it was not enforceable might have been acceptable 30 years ago, but he agrees with me that the education of the public in measures of public health has advanced considerably. In my opinion, they are ready for this. He said it is not enforceable. He would also agree that many provisions are embodied in Bills to constitute a guide to the public in the code of conduct we expect them to follow.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) that many people use these bottles for oil, permanent waving material and so on, simply because they know it is not an offence. If they knew it was an offence and that the stuff they put into the bottles might prove injurious to consumers, they would not do it. Why does the Parliamentary Secretary refuse to take action at this stage when I say that the public are ready for it? I suggest that we divide against the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 246.

Division No. 224.]
AYES
[5.25 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Hannan, W
Peart, T. F.


Adams, Richard
Hardy, E. A.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Hargreaves, A
Popplewell, E.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Hastings, S.
Porter, G.


Awbery, S. S.
Hayman, F. H.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bacon, Mist Alice
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Proctor, W. T.


Balfour, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Pryde, D. J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J
Herbison, Miss M.
Reeves, J.


Bence, C. R.
Hobson, C. R.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Benson, G.
Holman, P.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Beswick, F.
Holmes, Horace
Rhodes, H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Houghton, Douglas
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blackburn, F.
Hoy, J. H.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon A G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Ross, William


Bowles, F. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Brockway, A. F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Brown, Thomas (lnce)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Skeffington, A. M.


Burke, W. A.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Snow, J W.


Callaghan, L. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Sorensen, R, W.


Carmichael, J.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Sparks, J. A.


Chetwynd, G R
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Steele, T.


Clunie, J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Coldriek, W
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Collick, P H
Keenan, W.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Collins, V. J.
Key, Rt. Hon C. W.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
King, Dr. H. M.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, G. M.
Swingler, S. T.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Sylvester, G. O.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Daines, P.
Logan, D. G
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McGhee, H. G.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Mclnnes, J.
Timmons, J.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McLeavy, F.
Usborne, H. C.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Viant, S. P.


Deer, G.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Warbey, W N.


Delargy, H. J
Mainwaring, W. H.
Walkins, T. E.


Dodds, N. N.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M (Bradford, C.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Weitzman, D.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Manuel, A. C.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A
West, D. G.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mason, Roy
Wheeldon, W. E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mayhew, C. P
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mellish, R. J.
While, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mitchison, G. R
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Fernyhough, E.
Monslow, W.
Wigg, George


Fienburgh, W.
Moody, A. S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Fineh, H. J.
Morley, R.
WilIey, F. T.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Follick, M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham. S)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Foot, M. M.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Forman, J. C.
Moyle, A.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'v)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mulley, F. W.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Murray, J. D
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Nally, W.
Willis, E. G.


Gibson, C. W.
Oldfield, W. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Gooch, E. G.
Oliver, G. H.
WinterboMom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C
Oswald, T.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gray, C. F.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wyatt, W. L.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Yates, V. F.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pannell, Charles



Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pargiter, G. A
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Paton, J
Mr. Arthur Allen and


Hamilton, W. W.
Pearson, A
Mr. John Taylor.




NOES


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Arbuthnot, John
Banks, Col. C.


Alport, C. J. M.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Barber, Anthony


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Astor, Hon. J. J
Baxter, Sir Beverley


Amery, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Baldwin, A. E.
Beach, Maj. Hicks




Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Heath, Edward
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Osborne, C.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Page, R. G.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Partridge, E.


Bishop, F. P.
Hollis, M. C.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Holt, A. F.
Perkins, Sir Robert


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bowen, E. R.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Horobin, I. M.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Pitman, I. J.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Powell, J. Enoch


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hughes-Hallett, Vice-Admiral J
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hurd, A. R.
Profumo, J. D.


Billiard, D. G.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hutchison, James (Sootstoun)
Ramsden, J. E.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Campbell, Sir David
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Carr, Robert
Iremonger, T. L
Remnant, Hon. P.


Cary, Sir Robert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Renton, D. L. M.


Channon, H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Kaberry, D.
Robertson, Sir David


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Cole, Norman
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Robson-Brown, W.


Colegate, W. A.
Kerr, H. W.
Roper, Sir Harold


Conant, Mai Sir Roger
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lambton, Viscount
Russell, R. S.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Sandys, Rt Hon. D.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Leather, E. H. C.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Crouch, R. F.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Scott, R. Donald


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Lindsay, Martin
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Longden, Gilbert
Snadden, W. McN.


Deedes, W. F.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Soames, Capt. C.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spearman, A C. M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McAdden, S. J.
Speir, R. M.


Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. McA.
McCallum, Major D.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Donner, Sir P. W.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Spans, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Duthie, W. S.
McKibbin, A. J.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Storey, S.


Fell, A.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Finlay, Graeme
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Studholme, H. G.


Fisher, Nigel
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Teeling, W.


Foster, John
Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Tilney, John


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Glover, D.
Marples, A. E.
Turner, H. F. L


Godber, J. B.
Maude, Angus
Turton, R. H


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maudling, R.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Gough, C. F. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Vane, W. M. F.


Gower, H. R.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Mellor, Sir John
Vosper, D. F.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Molson, A. H. E.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Grimond, J.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Wall, Major Patrick


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon C


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Watkinson, H. A.


Harden, J. R. E.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Neave, Airey
Wellwood, W.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nicholls, Harmar
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Harvey, Air Cdre, A. V. (Macclesfield)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Wood, Hon. R.


Harvie-Wart, Sir George
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.



Hay, John
Nugent, G. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Oakshott, H. D.
Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Wills.


Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11.—(CREAM SUBSTITUTES.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Stross: As drafted, together with lines 30 to 40 of the Second Schedule on page 36, this Clause is intended to protect the public from buying cream substitutes of poor quality, and it is also an attempt to prevent them from being deceived whenever they purchase anything which is an alleged substitute for cream. The method used is apparent. The original two terms for cream, namely, "cream" and "artificial cream," are no longer to be used, and instead we shall have "reconstituted cream" and "imitation cream."
Section 29 of the 1950 Act, as it is now amended, would make it an offence to sell as cream any substance which purports to be cream or reconstituted or imitation cream, unless it is accurately described. I know I am pushing at an open door here, because I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary have had this fully in mind for some time. Therefore, I ask them to withdraw this Clause for reconsideration and bring forward amended words in order to make sure that what they have in mind shall be carried out. We all know that with the existing words it might be possible for anyone who cared to use the old and now rejected term "artificial cream" to provide something comparatively worthless and, as that term has been in use for some time, the public might be deceived.
We cannot forbid the use of the word "cream" for obvious reasons. It is used for all sorts of purposes which have nothing to do with a cow. For example, cream cracker, face cream, and the well-known Bristol cream, chocolate cream and a host of others. Indeed, my wife mentioned foundation cream to me, and there is also cream of tartar. Therefore, we cannot forbid the use of the word "cream," and so, in order to prevent a specious abuse of private—I will not say enterprise, but buccaneering on the part of some bright people in the future, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take this Clause back and bring forward another.

Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman has made an admirable point. There is a

case for an attempt to be made to redraft this Clause to make it clearer. I am glad to give him the assurance that we will seek to do that between now and the Report stage.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12.—(FOOD AND DRUGS AUTHORITIES.)

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 12, line 24, to leave out "forty," and to insert "thirty."
Into a Bill which is so much concerned with pure milk and keeping the water out of the milk, it is perhaps a little inappropriate to introduce the parish pump. I am sorry to say that this is the parish pump, naked and unashamed, as parish pumps so often are. I have been looking into the matter and have regretfully come to the conclusion that I can expect no special personal help from either the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary. It appears to me as improbable that Tiverton should become a food and drugs authority as it is that Luton should cease to be one, and in those circumstances I must be quite frank with the Committee.
I represent two important towns. One of them, Kettering, has a population of between 30,000 and 40,000 and a noble record of municipal enterprise in this kind of matter, and in others too. Next door is a place called Corby, which, while at present too small to be a food and drugs authority, is destined to have a population of 40,000. As it has an almost record birth rate, it is only a question of time before the population will exceed 40,000.
I do not want to go back into history, I need only turn to the present. What would happen if we tried to give some great municipal advantage to Glasgow and denied it to Edinburgh; or, if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite prefer a Commonwealth instance, if we gave it to Sydney and denied it to Melbourne? I can assure the Committee that there would be serious trouble.
There is nothing particularly sacred about "forty." The position used to be before the 1938 Act that there were food and drugs authorities not entirely dependent on the number of the population,


though not every local authority, of course, was a food and drug authority. It did not only depend on population at that stage, as far as I know. It certainly did not depend on a population of 40,000, which was a provision introduced in 1938.
Let us think of the beauties of a town having a population between 30,000 and 40,000. It is just about the right size. It can be relied upon to show great municipal enterprise and to administer its affairs with intelligence and a progressive spirit. It can be relied upon occasionally, though not always, to return the right person to this House. I should have thought that it might well be a shining example of local government, and I would say with all diffidence that on its record Kettering, in particular, can claim to be that. If the authority were allowed to be a food and drug authority it would be a particularly good one. I should have thought that in general towns of that size ought to be allowed to be so.
The present position is that a local authority as such has some powers under this Act. If it is a food and drug authority it has more powers, but surely as far as possible we ought to try to eliminate the double position, that is the position where one has an authority with half the powers under the Act. It is not the kind of thing one wants to enlarge. Therefore, I beg the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary to consider in a kindly and sympathetic spirit, forgetting for the moment the great size of Luton and the comparative smallness of Tiverton, the plea that I make that the figure should be lowered and that no invidious distinctions should be drawn between the prospective Corby and the present Kettering.

Dr. Hill: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) had no need to apologise for putting a constituency point so nakedly, for there are others who have constituency points relating to the status and functions of local government authorities who have not hesitated to do the same. Clearly, the hon. and learned Member will appreciate, though I do not suggest that this is the complete answer, that there are repercussions in a number of directions following a change of this kind. My right hon. Friend has been looking at the

two unrelated problems raised by this Amendment and the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), which requires that a direction be given.
My right hon. Friend authorises me to say that he would like an opportunity of considering them further. We would be glad to listen to anything that hon. Members have to say and, without commitments, would be glad to look at both the problems between now and the Report stage. I would ask that with that undertaking we should proceed to move into the Bill the two privileged Amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. F. Beswick: The hon. Gentleman has been good enough to say that the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and that to be raised by myself in my Amendment are unrelated and, therefore, I would not respond to his invitation on this occasion. I should like him to address himself more particularly to the point which I shall raise when, with permission, I move the Amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey).

Mr. Mitchison: As regards the Amendment in my name, I should like to thank the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for what has been said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 12, line 29, at end, insert:
(2) Where, apart from this subsection. the council of a non-county borough or urban district would become the food and drugs authority for that borough or district in consequence of the publication of any census, and the Minister of Health is satisfied, upon application made by the council of the county in which the borough or district is comprised, that the area or areas in respect of which the last mentioned council would in that event be the food and drugs authority are inconvenient in size, shape or situation for the efficient performance of their duties, as such, he may direct that the council of the county shall, so long as the directions remain in force. continue to be the food and drugs authority for the borough or district.—[Dr. Hill.]

Amendment proposed: In page 13, line 6, at end, insert:
(4) Where according to the last published census for the time being the population of a


non-county borough or urban district is less than twenty thousand. no directions shall be given in respect thereof under subsection (3) of this section and, if the council of the borough or district were a food and drugs authority before the publication of the census, the council shall cease to be the food and drugs authority for the borough or district and any directions in force in respect thereof under that subsection shall cease to have effect.—[Dr. Hill.]

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Beswick: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end, to add:
save that a direction may be given when the Minister of Health is satisfied that such a direction is necessary to secure the efficient performance of the purposes of this Act.
For certain domestic reasons, I can support the glowing terms in which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) painted that town which he represents so well. Nevertheless, he ought not to be under the misapprehension that if his Amendment had been accepted it would necessarily follow that Kettering would be made a food and drug authority. It would still remain within the power of the Minister to issue a direction to the effect that that town should not be so designated.

Mr. Mitchison: The Minister would not do that.

Mr. Beswick: My Amendment is more concerned with the powers of direction which have been granted to the Minister and the further powers he proposes to have under the Bill. I want to give the Minister a certain amount of essential discretion, and I feel that consideration of this point should be taken separately from the more general case which my hon. and learned Friend presented.
In the county of Middlesex—and I hasten to say that I am not moving the Amendment in any parish pump sense at all—when the 1938 Act was going through the House there were 14 districts, each containing over 40,000 inhabitants, in respect of which the Minister nevertheless issued a direction to the effect that none of them should be permitted to exercise authority under the Food and Drugs Act. Having issued that direction, he had no power to rescind it. Therefore, despite the fact that each had over 40,000 population, it was not possible for these urban districts to take the powers under the Act. Since that time other

districts have grown up to over 40,000 population but, because of the anomalies which would have been created, similar directions were issued in respect of them.
The position in Middlesex now is that 21 districts, each of over 40,000 population, have not the powers which normally would have been provided under the Act to become food and drugs authorities. Of the remainder, all but one have between 20,000 and 40,000 population, and therefore, under the Act, each has the right to apply to become a food and drugs authority. The Minister can issue a directive giving them that authority. If he wants to apply the provisions of this Act as it will stand after amendment, and to revoke the directions already given in respect of the 21 authorities with more than 40,000 inhabitants and to give the powers to those urban districts which have between 20,000 and 40,000 inhabitants, that would leave one urban district in the far corner of the county without the possibility of becoming a food and drugs authority.
There is one urban district, with which the Minister of Health will be familiar, because he happens to represent it in this House, which has a population of between 17,000 and 18,000 inhabitants. I am not concerned with Potters Bar. which is the urban district in question. I have no doubt that it is a very attractive urban district, although it is somewhat ill-advised in its political judgment. But it would be quite wrong either to create the anomaly of leaving one urban district within the whole county without the necessary powers and having therefore to retain in the guildhall an administrative apparatus for the purpose of carrying out responsibilities under the Act, or to deny the powers to the remaining urban districts simply because it is not possible under the Act as it stands to give the authority to Potters Bar.
What my hon. Friend and I are advocating is to give the Minister the kind of discretion that would be necessary with regard to Potters Bar. I am not here concerned to discuss the merits of the case of whether the powers of revocation which the Minister has taken should be used or not. He now has powers to revoke the direction given to those authorities with more than 40,000 inhabitants, and I presume that, as he has taken those powers, the Minister is


contemplating using them. If he does use them he would be creating this anomaly. I think this is a position which we should not allow to prevail. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will see his way either to accept this Amendment, or specifically to say that he will accept the principle.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: In giving favourable consideration to the matter, will the Minister consider whether instead of the word "necessary" in the Amendment to the Amendment the word "desirable" might be used?

Dr. Hill: I will see that the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) is considered.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) has argued his case with clarity and cogency. As he said, it is a separate point. If the Minister considers both points in both Amendments, it by no means follows that the same consideration or the same results will apply to them; they are two separate points. The Minister will give most careful consideration to the point put by the hon. Member, but he wants to see this structure as a whole in the light of both proposed Amendments. For that reason, what I am saying does not disguise lack of sympathy in this matter. For the reason I have given, the Minister would like to look at the position as a whole in the light of these two projected changes, without commitment. It is for the Minister further to consider, but he will consider the points raised.

Mr. F. Willey: I am very glad that we have the Minister of Health present in our consultations. I am sure the Committee respect the interest that he has shown by sitting patiently through the discussion. Potters Bar has a very talented hon. Member, but he is peculiarly misguided. They find difficult to understand that a person with such gifts and intelligence should come to such remarkably wrong political conclusions. But that is another matter, mentioned only incidentally.
I am very glad that the Minister will look at this question. I do not want to embarrass him, but I take it that it is conceded that there is a case here for some provision to be made for these exceptional cases. I appreciate the general

difficulty. Some day we shall have to reform our local government and these matters will be dealt with. Meanwhile, there are particular difficulties, and we can expect that there will be an effort in this Bill to meet the peculiar difficulties which have been mentioned by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Beswick: I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary will be good enough to respond to the words uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey)? I was already aware of the sympathy of the Parliamentary Secretary. I have no doubt that he will regard the principle with great care, but I do not want to confuse it at all in any discussions with a more general revision of this business. Here is a small and narrow question. What I want to know, if the Parliamentary Secretary will be good enough to respond, is that the principle I have endeavoured to set out within these words is accepted; that the discussion would simply be in order to find ways and means of facing the difficulties which will be created for the Minister of Health and his successors and to see if we cannot find a form of words which will give the necessary discretion.

Dr. Hill: I have gone as far as I can. A powerful case has been stated by the hon. Member, but it would be wrong of me to go further now than to say that most careful consideration will be given to it.

Mr. Beswick: In view of the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, and as there is such a thing as a Report stage, and I hope our discussions will take place before Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO FOOD AND DRUGS AUTHORITIES.)

Amendment made: In page 13, line 31, at end, insert:
(2) Any council who become or cease to be a food and drugs authority under the last foregoing section in consequence of the publication of any census shall become or cease to be such an authority on the first day of April next after the expiration of a period


of six months from the publication of the census or, where an application for directions under that section in respect of the borough or district concerned is duly made, on such later date, if any, as the Minister of Health may determine.
(3) Any directions given, or having effect as if given, by the Minister of Health under the last foregoing section may at any time be revoked by the Minister as from such date as he may determine; but except as provided by this subsection and subsection (4) of that section, such directions shall continue in force notwithstanding the publication of any subsequent census in respect of the area to which they relate.—[Mr. Amory.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14.—(ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN ENACTMENTS AND REGULATIONS.)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I beg to move, in page 14, line 26, after "Excise," to insert:
and local authorities for the purposes of the Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1936.
With your permission, Major Anstruther-Gray, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if we consider all the Government Amendments to this Clause together. They are all consequential on the change which the Committee may remember it made to Clause 5 when it enabled the Board of Trade to make regulations concerned with labelling articles of food as to their weight, measure, or number. These Amendments make the enforcing authorities for those regulations the weights and measures authorities and enable the Board of Trade to institute proceedings where there has been a breach of those regulations.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 15, line 18, after "made," insert "by the Ministers."

In line 20, at beginning, insert:
and the Board of Trade may, where they are of opinion as aforesaid, institute proceedings for any offence against regulations made by them under the said section five.

In line 22, after "Minister," insert "or the Board of Trade."

In line 30, after "made," insert "by the Ministers."—[Mr. H. Strauss.]

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 15, line 32, to leave out "fourteen," and to insert, "twenty-eight."
The next Amendment relates to the same point and may, if the Committee

agrees, be discussed with this one. It is to line 35.

The Temporary Chairman (Major Anstruther-Gray): I think that would be for the convenience of the Committee.

Mr. Higgs: The Minister has power under subsection (4) of this Clause himself to institute proceedings for offences, and where local authorities intend to prosecute, the Bill requires that notice be given to the Minister 14 days before the proceedings. Presumably there are two possible reasons why such notice should be given. First, so that if the case is of wide national or regional significance, the Minister may suggest to the local authority that it might be more appropriate if proceedings were taken with the authority of the Minister.
Secondly, in any event local authorities will require some guidance as to the standards set by local authorities and by benches of magistrates in other parts of the country, and if he has notice of what proceedings are being taken throughout the country, the Minister will be able to build up some information from which he can advise as to the standards which are general.
The purpose of the first Amendment is to allow 28 days instead of 14 days between the giving of the notice and the institution of the proceedings by a local public health authority. The Minister has two important functions which he has to carry out on receipt of that notice. Proceedings cannot be instituted, the information cannot be laid, until he has carried out those two functions. It is thought that 28 days would be the minimum time in which the Minister may be expected in all cases to be able to do the job required of him. May I say that the trade generally regards the functions of the Minister in setting up national standards and instituting proceedings to be of some importance and they think that it would be a protection if he were given a month in which to make up his mind.
The second of my two Amendments is simply a lawyer's point which occurred to me as requiring attention. At the moment, the Bill requires simply that notice shall be given to the Minister and does not say anything about the form of the notice. Reference back to the 1938 Act and to the Public Health Act, 1936, which is read with it, requires, I believe. that the notice shall be served on the


Minister at his present or last known place of abode, which might occasion some personal and domestic inconvenience to my right hon. Friend.
In any event, it seems to me that if the Minister is not to be made a party to the proceedings it should not be the duty of the prosecution at the commencement of a hearing strictly and formally to prove that they have served the notice. There is no point in requiring them to do so if the Minister is not a party to the proceedings, but there is the possibility that a fillibustering defending advocate might seek to argue that the notice was not proper, or that the summary of facts to be served with it was not full and fair. I think that the Committee should consider if it be necessary for the prosecution strictly to prove that notices have been served.

Mr. Amory: I think that 14 days is sufficient for the purpose, and that were we to extend the time I am doubtful whether it would be fair to the trader concerned to be kept hanging about too long. Mine is a quick working Department, and I think that 14 days will suffice.
As for the second Amendment, I think it possible that there may be something in what my hon. Friend has said, and that it would be a good plan if we looked into it. If my hon. Friend is satisfied with what I have said about his first Amendment, and also with my assurance that I will look into the point raised in his second Amendment, I hope that he will agree to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: Since the Minister has undertaken to examine the point raised in the second Amendment, may I add my plea to that of my hon. Friend that he will so look at the first Amendment which has been moved. I think that the Minister has overlooked the possibility of proceedings passing down the line from the retailer to the wholesaler and to the manufacturer, and, it may be, even further. Fourteen days can go very quickly when it is necessary to find out who are the other parties concerned, and I consider that it is an important point to have time to make proper inquiries.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Although the appeal made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) that this should be considered is no doubt right, I would

express the hope that, nevertheless, it will be rejected. It is quite clear that the time afforded by this provision is more than long enough. It does not say that the period has to be 14 days, but that it must not be fewer than 14 days, whereupon it is possible for the Minister to give even longer consideration before a notice is given.
All that it means is that when the notice is given there shall be that time, namely, 14 days, and that there shall accompany it a summary of the facts upon which the charges are founded. That is more than ample time, and to extend it beyond that period would be to the prejudice not only of the public but—and here I agree with the Minister—to the parties concerned.

Mr. Higgs: My right hon. Friend probably knows better than I how long it would take for anything to be done by his Department. In those circumstances, though with some slight misgiving, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 and 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17.—(POWERS OF SAMPLING.)

Captain Duncan: I beg to move, in page 16, line 35, at the end, to insert:
(5) Any sample taken by a sampling officer shall be paid for at the time it is taken.

The Temporary Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed with this Amendment the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer).

Captain Duncan: The object of the Amendment is that a sampling officer should pay for a sample of milk when he takes it. I believe that that principle operates already under the Public Health Act, and it seems to me that we should apply the same principle under this Bill.
I recognise that there may be some occasions when it will be difficult to do this. For instance, when a sampling officer takes one-third of a pint of milk from a travelling milk tank it may be impracticable for him to pay for it. But this Bill covers far more than that type of incident, and wherever the value of the sample taken, which may be in four


parts, amounts to a very considerable sum, it seems to me right that the sampling officer should pay.
I think that the principle is self-evident; there is a precedent in the Public Health Act and I hope that even if he cannot accept the Amendment as it stands the principle may be accepted by the Minister and included in the regulations.

Dr. Hill: The difficulty is that very often it is impossible to find anyone to pay when a sample is taken. Many samples are bought because if anything defective is found in them it is desired to take action under Section 3 of the 1938 Act. However, there are many circumstances in which the sampling officer taking a sample, say from a churn, is quite unable to find anyone to pay. Although, in general, I think that it is a sensible thing that one should pay for what one takes from other people, it is because of the practical difficulties that I ask my hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) did not speak——

Sir L. Plummer: So help me, I have been convinced by the Minister for the first time, and I think the last time, in my life. That being so, I do not propose to press my Amendment.

Dr. Hill: I will not pursue the matter further.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18.—(DISPOSAL OF SAMPLES TAKEN FOR ANALYSIS.)

Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 17, line 11, to leave out from "officer," to the end of line 22, and to insert:
not being a sample of cream or a sample to which the foregoing paragraph applies, he shall dispose of the part in accordance with the special provisions contained in the next following subsection.
I suggest that it would be convenient to consider, at the same time, the next Amendment in my name, in page 17, to insert new subsections (3) and (4).
Of all the substances that have to be sampled from time to time in the course of the enforcement of these laws milk provides the greatest difficulty, not so much because it is liquid but because it

passes through so many hands and is very often mixed from a number of different sources. The problem is to get one part of the milk which is taken to the person who will be the defendant as quickly as possible. Samples may be taken in the dairy or in transit, either in bulk or in bottles, and in each case it may be that a different person may have to defend the milk.
The suggested alteration would provide for separating the different types of container and the different circumstances in which samples may be taken. In the proposed new subsection, paragraph (a) deals with milk taken from large containers in bulk. Paragraph (b) deals with containers of a capacity of six pints or less. That I understand to be a milk bottle. I have not very often seen a six pint milk bottle, but apparently they exist. They contain rather more than a magnum. Paragraph (c) deals with samples taken at a dairy, and paragraph (d) is intended to cover any other cases.
It is hoped that it will be possible, if the different provisions are written into the Bill, for the process of sampling to go more smoothly and with less difficulty than it has sometimes done. In passing, I would say that I do not know whether this suggestion has been considered. Methods of sampling, and so on, are difficult to describe especially in the formal language of the text of a Bill. Perhaps it would be of advantage if it were described in that part where the draftsman can let down his hair, in the Schedule. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has considered whether or not all sampling procedure should be dealt with in the Schedule where it could be more simply expressed and perhaps, as a result, more readily understood.

6.15 p.m.

Dr. Hill: My hon. Friend was good enough to consult us about this matter. As a result I can say that the proposed change has the support of the sanitary inspectors and of the trade. It seems to be a useful permanent change. I have some sympathy with the view that if the sampling procedure could be put in the Schedule, and perhaps written in simpler and less formal language, those who have to follow the procedure might benefit. I promise that I will look at the point between now and Report.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 17, leave out lines 34 to 36, and insert:
(3) Where paragraph (c) of the last foregoing subsection applies in relation to a sample of milk, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say—

(a) if the sample was taken from a container having a capacity greater than six pints, and appearing to the sampling officer to show the name and address (being an address in England or Wales) of any person as consignor of the milk the officer shall give the part of the sample to that person;
(b) if the sample was taken from a container having a capacity of six pints or less, and appearing to the sampling officer to show the name and address (being an address in England or Wales) of any person as the person who put the milk into the container, the officer shall give the part of the sample to that person;
(c) if—

(i) neither of the two foregoing paragraphs apply, and
(ii) the sample was taken at a dairy,
the sampling officer shall give the part of the sample to the occupier of the dairy;
(d) if none of the three foregoing paragraphs apply, the sampling officer shall give the part of the sample—

(i) to the occupier of the dairy from which the milk was consigned, or
(ii) (if it was consigned from more than one dairy) to the occupier of the dairy from which it was last consigned.
(4) In every case in which the two foregoing subsections apply the sampling officer shall inform the person to whom the part of the sample is given that the sample was purchased or taken for the purpose of analysis by a public analyst.—[Mr. Higgs.]

Sir L. Plummer: I beg to move, in page 17, line 40, at the end, to insert:
(4) Where any sample of milk is taken by a sampling officer, he shall, immediately it becomes possible to do so, notify the person to whom he gives a part of the sample pursuant to the last foregoing section—

(a) that he has decided not to have the sample analysed in a case where he has so decided; and
(b) of the contents of the certificate of the results of an analysis in a case where he so decided.


I presume that the first part of the Amendment will be considered in the light of the debate that we have just had. In fact, I think that the last two Amendments fairly well cover the case that I want to put but, if they do not, I would say quite simply that it is right and proper that either the dairyman or the farmer, as the case may be, ought to be told whether or not the sample of milk which has been taken is to be analysed

I do not think that he should be left in any doubt about it. He ought to be told what is the intention of the sampling officer. It will inflict a needless irritation on the dairyman or the farmer if the sampling officer takes a sample and then goes away and there is no indication at all to the milkman or the farmer as to what is to happen to the sample. That is the first point.
The second point is that it is a matter of great importance to the farmer or the milkman that the contents of the certificate of the results of the analysis should be sent to him. The right hon. Gentleman has a great responsibility to see that when milk samples are taken from the farms in pursuit of his policy for better and cleaner milk information is given to the farmer about whether or not his milk has passed the test. The procedure at the moment works against the interests of the farmer. A general certificate is issued saying that the sample has passed the test or has not passed the test, but the farmer does not know to what degree his milk may or may not have passed the test.
The present system of milk production by machinery is a very complicated one indeed. The milk has to flow through a lot of tubes of rubber, steel, and so on, and each of these materials can in itself be responsible for setting up a colony of germs which, if not discovered very soon, may affect the purity of the milk. If the farmer was given information about the degree to which his milk failed the test, it might help him enormously to find out what had gone wrong with the milking process.
There is not a farmer producing milk in this country who is not haunted by the prospect of getting an adverse report on the milk which his cows produce. I know from experience that it can happen because of a worn lining to a teat cup, something which may be overlooked and, indeed, is very difficult to discover. Specific information in the certificate about the degree of failure in the test would help considerably in determining the cause of the failure.
I presume here that the cause is inadvertence and not deliberate; it is a question not of a man being lazy and dirty, but of something going wrong in the complicated modern milking machine. I move the Amendment in the interests of


improving the quality of milk and with the object of the farmer being given every encouragement and assistance to produce clean milk.

Dr. Hill: I see a good deal of force in the first point put by the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). I can appreciate that it may well be a source of anxiety to a person when a sample is taken and he has no knowledge of a change of decision. I have sympathy with that point.
I am, however, in real difficulty about the hon. Gentleman's second point. The hon. Gentleman put his case in a most persuasive form and argued it with force in relation to the producer. In its present form, the Amendment would cover what is, after all, a great majority of the samples, those taken from dairymen.

Sir L. Plummer: It would cover the producer-retailer.

Dr. Hill: It might do so, but a vast number of samples are taken at dairies, and it would mean that in every case a copy of the analyst's certificate, a rather complicated document, would have to go to the dairyman. What troubles me is what would happen if, through an omission, a copy of the report was not sent to the dairyman although the report indicated grave adulteration. The omission to send to the dairyman that single and relatively unimportant statement might vitiate a prosecution.
However, I see the strength of the hon. Gentleman's first point, and although I have considerable doubts about the second, I undertake to look at the two points and, if it is considered wise, to put forward an Amendment on the Report stage.

Sir L. Plummer: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 18, line 2, after "shall," to insert:
unless he decides not to have an analysis made
This is a simple point. The sampling officer is required to notify the manufacturer that he has taken a sample. Clearly, this is unnecessary when he is not pro-

posing to have the sample analysed, and the purpose of the Amendment is to remove the requirement in such circumstances.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir Alfred Bossom: As this Clause is almost entirely administrative, will my hon. Friend agree to look at it again and consider whether he can take out the procedure and provisions which are purely administrative and are not, in general, related to the spirit of the Bill, and put them into a Schedule, by means of an Amendment on the Report stage?

Dr. Hill: The provisions to which my hon. Friend refers might be more conveniently put in the Fourth Schedule, which deals with sampling procedure, for the reason given earlier. We will consider the matter before Report.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20.—(POWERS OF ENTRY.)

Commander J. W. Maitland (Horn-castle): I beg to move, in page 20, line 8, at the end, to add:
(3) In the exercise in relation to a ship of the powers conferred upon him by this section or by the said section seventy-seven, an officer shall conform to such reasonable requirements of the master or other person in charge of the ship as are necessary to prevent the working of the ship being obstructed or interfered with.

The Temporary Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss at the same time, the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Sir H. Webbe), in Clause 22, page 21, line 7, at the end, to insert:
(2) The power conferred by the foregoing subsection on an authorised officer of a port health authority shall be exercisable also in relation to an area not forming part of a port health district by an authorised officer of a local authority or county council.
the following Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for


Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner), in page 21, line 7, at the end, to insert:
(2) An authorised officer shall not give directions under subsection (1) of this section—

(a) prohibiting or restricting the removal or delivery from a ship of food imported as part of the cargo; or
(b) prohibiting the removal or delivery within a harbour of food imported with a view to sale for human consumption.

(3) Before giving directions restricting the removal or delivery within a harbour of food imported with a view to sale for human consumption, an authorised officer shall consult the harbour authority.
and also the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash, in Clause 29, page 24, line 38, at the end, to insert:
harbour" and "harbour authority" have the same meaning as in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.

Commander Maitland: That will be a very convenient way of dealing with the matter, Major Anstruther-Gray.
The Clause and the series of Amendments we are discussing relate to the entry of an authorised officer into a ship. The Amendments do not seek in any way to obstruct what is an extremely important part of the Bill. They seek to ensure, and to write into the Bill, that there shall be co-operation between the officers and the captain or other person in charge of the ship in what might well be an extremely important and rather intricate operation.
I am sure that all hon. Members will realise the importance of the speed with which ships are turned round when they arrive at dockyard ports. The late Government and the present Government have both found it necessary to set up committees to try to speed up the turn-round. Those who know anything about the way in which ships are unloaded and handled in dock know that it is a very specialised and important business.
The Amendment I have moved seeks to ensure that the captain of the ship should be consulted, or should at least have a say in the matter, if for any reason it is not convenient to carry out what is laid down in Clause 20. I am not one of those who think that all Government and local government officials are necessarily either perfect or quite impossible; I think they are quite ordinary people, like I am, and they can, therefore, very easily make mistakes. It is for that

reason, and to safeguard a very important national function, the speed of turn-round in the ports, that I have moved the Amendment.

6.30 p.m.

Sir Harold Webbe: If I may refer to the Amendments in my name, which, I understand are being considered with the Amendment moved by my hon. and galland Friend, may I say that they consist of one substantial Amendment only, which is concerned solely to obviate possible confusion in the administration of Clause 22? In that Clause, the responsibility for administration is placed on the port health authority or the food and drugs authority into whose area the goods are imported.
In the case of the Port of London, and I should imagine that similar conditions apply in the other large ports, the area of the port health authority is extensive, and is overlapped at many points, in fact, at every point, by the area of another riparian local authority. If, therefore, the Clause is passed in its present form, there would be an overlapping of authority, and, what is much more serious, a division of responsibility, and the purpose of these Amendments is simply to make clear that, where goods are imported into the area of the port health authority, that authority shall have the responsibility of administrationn. In all other cases, the local authority into whose area the goods are imported will be the responsible authority. I think the Amendments would make for more effective and efficient administration.

Mr. Leslie Thomas: I wish to draw attention to the provisions in the latter part of Clause 22, particularly with the object of obtaining special recognition for the special requirements of the harbour, docks and shipping authorities, because there are circumstances which distinguish them from the other interests affected by this Clause.
I feel that, without some special recognition, an authorised officer will have no guidance at all as to whether any action which he may take is reasonable in relation to the very special circumstances of docks and harbours. As Clause 22 stands, the power to prohibit or restrict the movement of food cargoes which are contaminated or suspect is not subject to any qualification whatever, and, while I


am not suggesting that an authorised officer would place a restriction on the movement of a food cargo merely for the sake of being unreasonable, I think that in the special circumstances perhaps some moderation in the use of these powers will be desirable.
Obviously, and quite rightly, the Clause will keep contaminated food within the control of the authorised officer, but this can be done without slowing down the movement in the ports or the turn-round of ships. So long as a food cargo is held within the boundary, perimeter or ring fence of a harbour or docks, it does not matter in what part of the docks it should be held. I believe that a restrictive order might seriously hold up movement in the docks.
The purpose of the Amendment in Clause 22, page 21, line 7, is not to stop affected cargo being taken off the ship, because it would still be under control on the quay, to impede the movement of the cargo once it is on the quay, because it could still be moved within the area boundary. After all, the port authority is the best authority to consult as to where any contaminated cargo should be placed so that it might not interfere with the general movement and the operation of the docks.

Mr. Amory: I entirely agree with what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland). We want these important officers to behave reasonably, but I suggest that it is inappropriate that we should lay down in a statute that authorised officers should conduct themselves reasonably. It is a basic assumption that when we lay duties on public officers they will discharge them in a reasonable manner.
With regard to the Amendment referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. L. Thomas), we feel that to do what is suggested there would be to restrict unduly the enforcement officers in the discharge of their duties, and would, in fact, prevent them prohibiting goods being moved from ships to the wharves. I would remind my hon. Friend that the detention period is a very short one, and it would be a mistake to restrict these officers further.
So much do I agree with my hon. Friends about the necessity for these duties being performed reasonably that I

should like to give the Committee an assurance that, on the passing of the Bill, I will arrange for a circular to be sent to the local authorities inviting them to call the attention of their enforcement officers to the importance of paying due regard to the reasonable requirements of shipping authorities in order to avoid the immobilisation of ships and any undue delay.
I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Sir H. Webbe), and if he moves his Amendments later I shall be able to accept them.

Commander Maitland: In view of the Minister's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22.—(RESTRICTION ON MOVEMENT OF IMPORTED FOOD.)

Amendments made: In page 20, line 42, leave out "or food and drugs authority."

In line 43, leave out "area," and insert "district."

In page 21, line 7, at end, insert:
(2) The power conferred by the foregoing subsection on an authorised officer of a port health authority shall be exercisable also in relation to an area not forming part of a port health district by an authorised officer of a local authority or county council.—[Sir H. Webbe.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23.—(COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS.)

Sir L. Plummer: I beg to move, in page 21, line 20, to leave out from "procured," to end of line 24, and insert:
after the words twenty-eight days' there shall be inserted the words 'in the case of milk, and two months in any other case,' and after the words forty-two days from the said time;' there shall be inserted the words 'in the case of milk'.
I cannot gallop through my speech in moving this Amendment, because it is very important, and there would be the risk of a grave injury being done to farmers, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to happen.
We think it would be unreasonable for a farmer whose milk has been sampled to have to wait two months, and possibly six months, to know whether it is sound. Section 80 of the principal Act requires that proceedings shall be taken within 28 days of the sample being taken, and the purpose of this Bill is to amend that 28 days to two months and to extend the period under the Courts of Summary Jurisdiction Act up to six months. That may be perfectly reasonable in the case of ordinary food, but clearly unreasonable in the case of milk, which cannot possibly be more than three or four days old when the sample is taken, and of which samples are capable of very quick analysis.
We therefore think that the Amendment is reasonable in the case of milk—and it is confined specifically to milk—and we hope the Minister will be able to accept it.

Dr. Hill: Because the hon. Gentleman has limited the application of his Amendment to milk, I am able to tell him that we accept it. Other considerations apply to other food.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Pitman: There is the question of the other foods. In a recent Amendment, the Minister made a point of the need for proceeding quickly so that the citizen should know where he stood. In this clause there is more than a doubling of the minimum period and more than a quadrupling of the full period. I suggest that the Minister should give us some valid reasons why citizens should be kept in uncertainty for all that length of time after a sample has been taken. Surely the citizen is entitled to know soon the result one way or the other. We ought to be told the compelling reasons which make this longer time desirable in the case of commodities other than milk. Why cannot the good treatment accorded to milk, for which we thank the Minister, be extended to all?

Dr. Hill: We do not want to keep anybody waiting longer than is necessary, and for that reason I accepted the Amendment applying to milk. Such is

the character of the processes of analysis of food generally, and the time taken, that we must give way to the pressure brought to bear on us to extend the time. Local authorities asked for three months; we decided to extend it to two months. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) to accept that explanation.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24.—(PENALTIES AND OFFENCES BY CORPORATIONS.)

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 21, line 28, to leave out "one hundred" and to insert "five hundred."
I ought to remind the Minister that we came to an understanding with the Government, through the usual channels, that we would endeavour to conclude our proceedings by seven o'clock. That is fully understood on this side of the Committee but it does not seem to be appreciated on the Government benches. I am sorry to see the Leader of the House losing his grip on his own benches. We will endeavour to do all we can to reach this objective. I see that we have the learned Solicitor-General with us.

6.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: On a point of order. Was the agreement not subject to the understanding that both the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) to this Clause were to be taken together?

Mr. Willey: I am much obliged. They might well be taken together.
The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that when we discussed the Merchandise Marks Bill last Session he moved an Amendment to increase the penalty to £250. I hope the Minister will look at this matter again, and that the Solicitor-General will look at the Amendment in the light of the Amendment he then moved. I want to expedite consideration of the Bill and am anxious to get ahead.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the Committee proceedings on the Merchandise Marks Bill he will see that the then Attorney-General listed a number of recent Acts of Parliament


in which the penalty ran at about the figure suggested by the present Solicitor-General, from £250 to £200. Perhaps I might remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of those Acts. They are: the Dangerous Drugs Acts, the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act, the Statistics of Trade Act, the Civil Aviation Act, the Air Corporations Act and the Agricultural Development Act.
In those Acts the penalty is from £200 to £250 and it is undesirable to have a lower penalty in the Bill. I am not one who places over-reliance on the penalty but it certainly seems to us that the penalty is too low. We are suggesting £500 but I should be well content if the Government would promise to look at the matter again in the light of the Solicitor-General's contribution to our discussion on the Merchandise Marks Bill.
So far as imprisonment goes, I am content for the Government to promise to look at the matter in the light of other legislation. I agree that it is extremely difficult to have a fundamental principle in legislation in these matters, but we should see that the Bill runs in line with the penalties in other recent Acts.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member reminds me of a fact which I had forgotten. There was a process of Dutch auction, as it were, in which we had shots on the Order Paper at the right sum for the penalty in the Merchandise Marks Bill. Ultimately my own figure was the lucky one, in the sense that the Committee agreed upon it. Some hon. Members thought it should be more and some thought it should be less. It always will be so with maximum penalties.
I could not accept the principle that the appropriate maximum penalty in one statute for the purposes of that statute is necessarily the proper one under another statute. Greatly as I would like to oblige the hon. Gentleman in this matter, I am afraid that I cannot. We have given very careful consideration to the money penalty. Unless we are thinking in terms of very rich people we seem to be tending towards too high a maximum penalty. The amendment effected by this Bill would involve making it five times as much as it has ever been before for a first offence, adding £5 a day for a continuing offence and adding three months' imprisonment. He

would be a very stalwart offender who would not be deterred by those maximum penalties.
The real objection, as the hon. Member will understand, is much more fundamental. If we adopted the Amendment offences under the Bill would no longer be tryable summarily. They would have to go to quarter sessions and be tried by a jury. That would be much more cumbersome. Think of the third-party procedure, as it is called, whereby the defendant is allowed to call in the man who supplied him and to say, "It's your fault." Sometimes one gets as many as six defendants standing before the magistrates. To try that kind of case by jury would be impossible. In view of these considerations I am obliged to say that we cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Willey: I am sorry that the Solicitor-General is less amenable on this matter than I had hoped. Will he look at the very valuable contribution he made in Committee on the Merchandise Marks Bill? Refreshing his memory may alter his approach to this Bill. The Solicitor-General made his own position quite clear. We will study what he said and consider whether we should pursue this matter further on the Report stage. On the understanding that the Solicitor-General will look at his earlier contribution on the subject of penalties, I shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: On this matter, there is one aspect I should like to mention. We heard from the Solicitor-General one of the difficulties consequent upon increasing the money penalty as well as the term of imprisonment. Instead of being a matter for summary jurisdiction an offence would of necessity have to go to quarter sessions if the Amendment were accepted. But that is hardly a sufficient objection to the increase of the period of imprisonment to six months, which would still keep the offence within summary jurisdiction. Certainly, there would be more to be said for making the maximum six months than three months.
The money penalty as it stands is an inadequate and ineffective sanction for the purpose for which it is being applied. After all, a very grave offence is involved, and one which might lead to death. It might cause great suffering to quite a large number of people, yet from the point of view of punishment, it is to be


treated as though it were just a light matter. There are numerous offences for which at least three months' imprisonment and a maximum fine of £100 are imposed—quite trifling matters by comparison—but here we have a very grave matter, and I think that the Government not only should, but must, reconsider the matter.
The penalties of three months' imprisonment and the fine of £100 are, as I have said, quite inadequate and ineffective. If there is any difficulty about the question of jurisdiction, it would be quite simple to increase the period from three months to six months, what at all events is twice as much and very much better, and to step up the money punishment so that it will at least be the sort of sanction that will have some effect on this type of offenders.

Mr. Willey: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25.—(CONTRAVENTIONS ORIGINAT ING IN SCOTLAND OR NORTHERN IRELAND.)

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 22, line 40, at the end, to add:
or, in the case of a contravention of regulations made by the Board of Trade, to the Board.
This Amendment is a logical consequence of the change made in Clause 5.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO REGULATIONS, ETC.)

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 23, line 16, at the end, to insert:
and no such statutory instrument shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

The Chairman: I think it might be to the convenience of the Committee if the hon. and learned Member were to discuss this Amendment together with the next one in page 23, line 17, to leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Mitchison: Yes, Sir Charles. Time presses and though this is an important matter, I will be as brief as I possibly can. The point here is that regulations, for instance, the regulations which we have been discussing at some length, do not at present require an affirmative Resolution, but would be subject to annulment in the usual way. Though the regulations under this Bill may differ very widely, they are not narrow powers, but exceedingly wide powers, and I suggest that there is a proper case for making the regulations and the orders made under the Bill subject to affirmative Resolution.
I believe that if my right hon. and hon. Friends were given an assurance that the Government would look at the matter again with a view to seeing that the negative Resolution procedure should only apply to some parts of the Bill, they would probably be content with that, but, in the particular case which I have mentioned, it is obviously right, I suggest, that there should be an affirmative Resolution. I believe that we are always in danger of going too far in regulation-making, and that we tend to leave rather too much subject to no check at all, or subject only to the restricted check of the negative procedure.

Mr. Amory: I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we have thought about this a good deal and have considered the matter very carefully. As he knows, we have felt that the annulment procedure was the right one for most of the regulations, but we have, in certain exceptional cases, provided for the affirmative Resolution procedure to be adopted, in particular in respect of orders to extend the scope of registration.
Looking ahead, it is extremely difficult to say, but I should have thought that there will, from time to time, be need to introduce new regulations on quite trifling matters, and also, occasionally, to introduce a regulation when time is the essence of the matter. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, in the main, the affirmative Resolution procedure takes longer. I can assure him that we have looked at this point very carefully, and that, in this case, we think it would be rather cumbersome to make all these regulations subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure.

Mr. Willey: I appreciate all that the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I


would like him to look at the matter again, because we now have the new procedure, the half-past eleven rule, in regard to Prayers. It may be that the provision could be made slightly wider than it is at present in the Bill. I am sure that some important regulations will be made under the Bill, and that some of them ought to be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure despite the criticism made by the right hon. Gentleman and our blanket attempt to bring them all under the affirmative Resolution procedure.

Mr. Amory: I will go through the Bill with a fine comb once again to see whether there are any other regulations which we think ought to be applied in that way, but my feeling at the moment is that we ought to go very slowly in the matter of the affirmative Resolution procedure.

Mr. Mitchison: I hope that in so doing the right hon. Gentleman will pay particular attention to Clause 6. I am sure he will agree that these regulations will be of the highest importance, and perhaps a form of words might be found with which to draw a distinction between general regulations and the type of emergency regulations which he has in mind. In view of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29.—(INTERPRETATION)

Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: I beg to move, in page 24, line 8, after "establishment," to insert:
place of refreshment or entertainment.
As I said when speaking on a previous Amendment, the whole purpose of this Bill is to try to make Britain's food the cleanest and the most wholesome in the world. Bearing that in mind, my hon. Friends and I approve of subsection (2), to which the Amendment refers. However, we wonder whether the Minister has gone quite far enough. The first part of the subsection reads:
For the purposes of this Act the supply of food for human consumption, otherwise than by sale, at, in or from any catering establishment, canteen, club, hotel, boarding house, school, hospital or institution, shall be deemed to be a sale of that food

We are wondering whether, if the subsection remains as it is, the provisions contained in the Bill and in the regulations will be applicable to all places in which the public partake of food outside the home. For example, would the Clause as it now stands cover public-houses, milk bars, stationary food stalls and travelling vans? We know, of course, that there are places of entertainment where refreshment is offered to the public without any additional charge.
We do not wish that people who are guilty of the offence of supplyng dirty food should escape the penalties of the law by being able to plead that the supply of food for human consumption was otherwise than by sale. We think that this subsection would be improved by the addition of the words
place of refreshment or entertainment,
and that, if the Amendment were accepted, there would be a far better chance of all places in which food is partaken outside the home being covered by the Bill.

7.0 p.m.

Dr. Hill: This Clause refers to the passing of food, other than by sale, from one person to another. The list in the Clause reads:
… any catering establishment, canteen, club, hotel, boarding house, school, hospital or institution …
We thought that we had covered refreshment place, but to save time I promise to look at the point. While we do not want to insert unnecessary words, we do not want to omit an appropriate establishment.

Dr. Broughton: In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's promise to look at this, and as there will be a further opportunity to consider it on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 25, line 25, at the end, to insert:
Provided that subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to the interpretation of section fourteen of the principal Act.
This Amendment seeks to remove an inconsistency. We thought that possibly the provision of ice cream by hospitals to patients might mean that those places had to be registered.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 25, line 27, after "drugs," insert:
and in subsection (1) of section fourteen of that Act."—[Dr, Hill.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31.—(APPLICATION TO NORTHERN IRELAND.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 26, line 27, after the second "of," to insert:
subsection (4) of section eighteen of this Act or of.
The Committee will remember that it has already approved Clause 18 (4). The notice thereby provided for is for the advantage of the manufacturers, and it is not unlikely that the Northern Ireland Parliament will want to provide them with similar protection. Without the Amendment there might be some obstacle to its doing so, because of the restrictions upon its own legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 26, line 28, to leave out "section seventy-seven," and to insert:
sections seventy-seven and eighty-three.
This Amendment is concerned only with the importation of food into Northern Ireland. In this land the importer would have his third-party defence, and probably the Northern Ireland Parliament may wish him to have the same defence. This is to enable it to do so if it should wish.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 26, line 31, at the end, to insert:
(b) for repealing so much of the said First Schedule as relates to section seventy-seven or section eighty-three of the principal Act, or to section fourteen or sections seventeen to twenty-one or section twenty-four of this Act.
The intention is to leave enforcement to powers to be enacted by the Northern Ireland Parliament. Pending that time, certain provisions of the principal Act are applied and after that it will be necessary to repeal them. The object of this Amendment is to enable repeal to be effected.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32.—(MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS, REPEALS AND SAVINGS.)

Amendments made: In page 27, line 1, leave out "and."

In page 27, line 2, after first "Act," insert:
and the Slaughterhouses Act, 1954."—[Mr. Amory.]

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 27, line 20, after "made," to insert "by the Minister."
I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if with this Amendment we took the two which follow. They are all consequential on the insertion in Clause 5 of the powers of the Board of Trade. That has necessitated some redrafting of this Clause. The first and third Amendments are directly consequential and I think need no further explanation. The second, which leaves out certain words, is, in conjunction with the next Amendment, which will be moved by my hon Friend, a more convenient way of sub-dividing the section as a result of the redrafting made necessary by the introduction of the powers of the Board of Trade.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 27, line 25, leave out from first "and," to "revoked," in line 27, and insert "may be varied or."

In page 27, line 28, at end, insert:
(c) any order made by the Board of Trade under the said Regulation 2 and so in force shall continue in force and have effect as if contained in regulations made by the Board under section five of this Act and may be varied or revoked by such regulations accordingly.—[Mr. H. Strauss.]

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 27, line 35, at the end, to add:
(4) Any regulations made under Part I or Part III of the principal Act and continued in force by virtue of paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection, and any order continued in force by virtue of paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of that subsection, shall have effect (subject to any variation thereof by regulations under this Act) as if the regulations or order contained a provision making any contravention thereof, or failure to comply therewith, an offence under this Act.
(5) Any such order as aforesaid shall also have effect,—

(a) in the case of an order made by the Minister, as if it specified food and drugs authorities as the authority to enforce and execute within their area the provisions of the order; and


(b) in the case of an order made by the Board of Trade, as if it specified local authorities for the purposes of the Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1936, as the said authority.


This Amendment remedies an important omission. We co-opted the Defence Regulations without the necessary penalty and this omission we now seek to rectify.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33.—(SHORT TITLE, CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT.)

Mr. G. Darling: I beg to move, in page 27, line 40, to leave out from "on," to the end of line 41, and to insert:
the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-five, or on such earlier date as may be appointed by order of the Minister.
It is sufficient to say about this Amendment that it is the view of both sides that the new regulations, and the Amendments to the Act, should come into force as quickly as possible. We want to make it clear that that is our general desire and that there are no loopholes through which the Government can shuffle out, and evade the will of the Committee. We therefore wish to impose on them the provision that it shall come into operation on 1st January, 1955—or earlier if it can be done. If the Ministry will meet us on this point we shall be very happy.

Mr. Amory: I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that there will be no shuffling out. I should like to make our intention absolutely clear. We want to introduce a consolidation Measure as quickly as possible, because this Bill will be extremely difficult for the ordinary citizen to understand. Our intention is, if we can, simultaneously to make effective this Bill, the consolidation Measure, and just as many of the regulations as we possibly can. I think that 1st January is a little too soon, but we hope to bring all these into operation in the early months of next year. I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall not lose a single day.

Mr. Darling: With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain Duncan: I beg to move, in page 27, line 41, at the end, to insert:
Provided that section (Further provisions as to restriction of private slaughterhouses) of this Act shall come into operation on the date of the passing of this Act.
This Amendment is related to the new Clause which stands in my name. Both this Amendment and the new Clause arise out of the passing of the Slaughterhouses Act. The 1938 Act had hardly come into effect before the outbreak of war, and during and since the war the Ministry of Food, and the Defence Regulations, have been operating. Private slaughterhouses, and the new, free method of slaughtering have just come into operation. This new subsection and the proposed new Clause, refer to the condition arising out of the new situation.
Section 61 of the 1938 Act fixed the date of the closure as a date to be decided by the local authority. It also says that the resolution shall not have effect until the Minister's approval has been obtained. Some local authorities have been fixing dates too soon for the Minister adequately to consider the case, which might take much longer than the time allowed by the local authority. Indeed, the case might be the subject of a local inquiry, and it might take a little longer. The purpose of subsection (1) of the proposed new Clause, therefore, is to let the Minister, instead of the local authority, fix the date.
Subsection (2) of the proposed new Clause ensures that all persons interested in the property, whatever the property may be, are informed of the resolution, the Minister's decision and the date fixed for the closure. It is obviously right that people who are interested — local butchers, and so on—should be informed of the Minister's decision and the date of the closure.
The third proposal in subsection (3) of the proposed new Clause arises out of the Slaughterhouses Act. It has been found that cases may occur in which certain members of the meat trade have been asked to give an undertaking not to claim compensation under Section 5 of the Act in connection with the application of grants or renewals of licences on the closure of their slaughterhouses. The validity of these undertakings is doubtful, and it is only fair that the rights of the people concerned should be safeguarded


and put beyond legal doubt. The object of that subsection is to make it clear where their legal rights are.

Dr. Hill: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) has drawn attention to a difficult point. The words of the proviso to Section 61 (2) of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, dealing with the elimination of private slaughterhouses on the passage of a resolution by a local authority, are:
Provided that the resolution shall not have effect until it has been approved by the Minister.
Confusion has arisen where local authorities, having passed a resolution, say on 1st January, to come into operation by 3rd January, pass it to the Minister and the Minister some weeks later approves or disapproves. It is clearly desirable that the two dates should be brought together and that this confusion should not remain. There is no more in the first point than that.
The second point that my hon. and gallant Friend made was a good one, and I thought the third point a particularly good one. Some local authorities have, in fact, sought to extract from applicants for slaughterhouse licences a promise that they would not avail themselves of what is legally their right in respect of compensation under the Slaughterhouse Act. We have held the view that such waivers of a man's rights are illegal, but it is thought wise to accept the proposals. In the light of what I have said, I invite the Committee to accept this paving Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir William Darling: I wish to draw attention to the last sentence in the Clause, namely:
This Act shall not extend to Scotland.
It seems to suggest that Scotland is an adjunct of England and that the Act shall not extend to that adjunct. It seems to imply that the greater shall not be extended to the lesser. Scotland is not an extension of England. It is an independent and proud community of its own. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary might consider this wording:
This Act shall not apply to Scotland.

Dr. Hill: I assure my hon. Friend that his suggestion will receive the consideration that it so truly deserves.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(MISCELLANEOUS PROVI SIONS RELATING TO BOARD OF TRADE AND THEIR REGULATIONS.)

(1) Anything required or authorised by or under this Act to be done by, to or before the Board of Trade may be done by, to or before the President of the Board, any Minister of State with duties concerning the affairs of the Board, any Secretary, Under-Secretary, or Assistant Secretary of the Board, or any person authorised in that behalf by the President.

In this subsection the expression "Minister of State" means such a Minister of the Crown as is referred to in section two of the Re-Election of Ministers Act, 1919, as explained by the House of Commons Disqualification (Declaration of Law) Act, 1935.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (3) of section sixty-five of the principal Act (which relates to the taking of proceedings by county councils and local authorities), no council other than a local authority for the purposes of the Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1936, shall institute proceedings for an offence against regulations made by the Board of Trade under section five of this Act.

(3) Section seventy-seven of the principal Act (which relates to powers of entry) shall not apply in relation to the enforcement of regulations made by the Board of Trade under the said section five, but section ten of the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926 (which confers special powers of entry and inspection on inspectors of weights and measures), shall apply as if references therein to the said Act of 1926 and to its requirements included references respectively to regulations so made as aforesaid and to the requirements of such regulation.—[Mr. H. Strauss.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is consequential upon the Amendments by which the Board of Trade is empowered to regulate the labelling of food as regards weight, measure or number. Subsection (1) is in the usual form showing how the Board of Trade acts. Subsection (2) ensures that only weights and measures authorities shall take proceedings in cases of infringement of weights and measures regulations. Subsection (3) gives the right of entry to these officers.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(EXPENSES.)

There shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) any expenses incurred by any Minister of the Crown or Government department in consequence of the provisions of this Act, and
(b) any increase attributable to this Act in the moneys to be so provided under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, or the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, l954.—[Mr. Amory.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(CATERING PREMISES.)

(1) Where a person is proceeded against by a local authority for an offence against regulations made under section six of this Act in respect of any premises used as catering premises or of any business carried on at such premises, the following provisions of this section shall have effect.

(2) If the person is convicted of the offence, the court may if it thinks it expedient so to do having regard to the gravity of the offence or the unsatisfactory nature of the premises, or to any offences against regulations made under section six of this Act of which the person has previously been convicted, on the application of the local authority make an order disqualifying that person from using those premises as catering premises for such period not exceeding two years as may be specified in the order:

Provided that an order under this section shall not be made against any person unless the local authority have, not less than fourteen days before the date of the hearing, given that person written notice of their intention to apply for an order to be made against him.

(3) A person subject to an order under this section shall be guilty of an offence if, while the order is in force—

(a) he uses the premises to which the order relates as catering premises, or
(b) he participates in the management of any business in the course of which the premises are so used by another person.

(4) A person so subject may, at any time after the expiration of six months from the date on which the order came into force and from time to time thereafter, apply to the court before which he was convicted or by which the order was made to revoke the order, and on any such application the court may, if it thinks proper having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including in particular the person's conduct subsequent to the conviction and any improvement in the state of the premises to which the order relates, grant the application.

(5) If an application under the last foregoing subsection is refused by the court to which it is made, a further application thereunder shall not be entertained if made within three months after the date of the refusal.

(6) The court to which an application under the said subsection is made shall have power to order the applicant to pay the whole or any part of the costs of the application.—[Dr. Hill.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
We are not now involved in the main controversy. We are now concerned with the procedure to be followed, and there is no discourtesy intended to hon. Members opposite if I formally move the Second Reading of this Clause and deal with questions afterwards.

Mr. Willey: I have no objection at all to the Parliamentary Secretary moving the Second Reading of the Clause in this way. The Minister has already said that he will meet us on the general issue, and, therefore, we do not wish to pursue this matter at this stage.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: There is one point in this Clause which I must bring to the attention of the Minister and the Solicitor-General. I am not at all certain that it is not an oversight. The Clause is concerned with the type of case where a person is proceeded against by a local authority, and if that person is convicted owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the premises, the local authority can apply to the court to disqualify the person from occupying those premises.
But what follows is extraordinary. It says that the court may
make an order disqualifying that person from using those premises as catering premises for such period not exceeding two years.…
That means this: Notwithstanding that there are premises which have been shown to be quite unsuitable, in respect of which there has been an offence and some person has been convicted, nevertheless, at the expiration of two years that person can go into the same premises and carry on that business. By that time the premises may be more dilapidated and more unsuitable than they were previously.
A man can apply after six months, but he does not need to apply after two years. Certainly after six months he can apply, and within the period from six months to two years he must apply if he wants to carry on the business on the premises


again, but after the expiration of the two years he does not need to apply at all. He is at liberty, by the effect of this sub-section, to go into the premises again and carry on business.
I defy anyone to challenge that statement on the terminology of this proposed new Clause as it stands. It must be an omission, and inadvertence. I ask the Minister to look at the matter again, and if I am right in my interpretation, not only do I say that the matter should be put right, but I am perfectly certain that the Government will be prepared to put it right.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. E. M. Cooper-Key: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, to leave out "offence or the unsatisfactory nature of the premises, or to."
The object of the Amendment is to prevent exceptionally harsh treatment of an offender against regulations, made under Clause 6, which would follow if this Clause were accepted as it now is. It is a very serious matter to envisage an order made by the courts forbidding a person to use his premises any longer as catering premises. My suggestion is that such an order should not be made, at least unless he has been convicted of more than one offence against the regulations. As this Clause stands, a court is given the power to make such an order on one of three grounds: having regard to the gravity of the offences, or the unsatisfactory nature of the offences, or any previous offences. This Amendment will make it possible for the court only to make an order having regard to both the gravity of the offences and the unsatisfactory nature of the premises.
In theory, any hotel, if it were convicted of breaking any of the regulations under Clause 6, could be closed down, and I think that these regulations for the most part deal with somewhat trifling matters.

Mr. G. Darling: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary is not going to agree that a bad catering establishment should have two goes at poisoning its customers.

Dr. Hill: I agree with the hon. Member that it must be open to the courts when grave offences should disqualify, even although it is a first offence. There is one point which my hon. Friend has raised. As matters stand, it is possible for the man to be convicted of an offence and, because of the unsatisfactory nature of his premises in respect of which there has been no conviction, to be disqualified. We will look at that point to see that we are being absolutely fair.

Mr. Cooper-Key: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(TRANSFERENCE OF MINISTERIAL POWERS.)

The powers conferred by this Act on the Minister of Food shall cease with effect from the first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-fice, and thereafter, unless otherwise stated, "the Minister" shall mean the Minister of Health.—[Mr. Vaughan-Morgan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Under the principal Act, the Minister of Health was the only Minister concerned. Since that date, the Ministry of Food has come into being and has acquired various powers. The purpose of this Clause is to restore the status quo that prevailed before the war. In administrative terms, it means simply a transfer of the food hygiene section of the Ministry of Food to the Ministry of Health. I think it is quite certain that food hygiene has more in common with the Ministry of Health than with the other functions of the Ministry of Food, and certainly more than with the functions of the Ministry of Agriculture. I see no reason why this important Department should not be as happy in Savile Row as in Horseferry Road.

Mr. G. Darling: I sincerely hope the Minister is not going to accept this Amendment. The principle of the question of the transfer of the functions of the Ministry of Food to the Ministry of Health was brought forward in the House when the Prime Minister said:


… There are some functions of the Ministry of Food whose permanent location in our system of Government must be carefully considered. … I do not exclude full consideration of the future of any of the functions of the Ministry of Food which will have to continue. I certainly feel that the interest of the consumers require most careful consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th October, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 1033–34.]
Surely the manner in which the Prime Minister is being swept aside by the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment is something that ought to cause alarm on the benches opposite. We know that some of them would like to get rid of the Prime Minister, but surely this is not quite the way to do it.
I can deploy a long series of arguments against this Amendment, and also against the continuation of these functions of the Ministry of Agriculture, but I will content myself with quoting the public analyst for the city of Birmingham:
It has apparently not yet been decided which Government Department will take over the responsibility for administering the Food and Drugs Act when the Ministry of Food is wound up; this latter event may cause some misgivings when one recollects how little attention was paid by the Ministry of Health to the subject of food when it was responsible for the working of the Act.
He went on to say—and I am paraphrasing him—that it would be a grave mistake to put these functions of the Ministry of Food into any Ministry which was not exclusively concerned with these consumer questions. I will leave the matter there. There will be another opportunity, perhaps, if the Government do not take the right course, to speak again. I hope that this Amendment will be rejected.

Mr. Amory: I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that I do not want to accept this new Clause in present circumstances. Any arrangements for the transfer of functions from one Department to another can be made by an Order in Council, and so there is no necessity for it to be included in a Bill like this. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are giving close attention to this. I hope that, with that assurance, my hon. Friend will not press this Clause.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(DEFENCE AVAILABLE IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER S. 83 OF PRIN CIPAL ACT.)

For the purposes of any defence put forward under section eighty-three of the principal Act a person carrying on business as a wholesaler or retailer who purchased in good faith any food or drug pre-packed for re-sale in a container and resold it in that container shall not be required to prove that he made any examination of the contents of that container other than such as was reasonable in the ordinary course of his business.—[Mr. Pitman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Pitman: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of this new Clause is to give protection to the retailer and wholesaler by removing some of the onus of proof which is imposed by Section 83 of the principal Act upon the retailer or wholesaler in his relation to the prosecuting local authority and to the manufacturer when the retailer's goods are the cause of any prosecution which is contemplated, or, actual. The principal Act gives protection only if the original defendant proves he has used all due diligence to secure, etc. I would ask the Committee to recognise, that these words "all due diligence" are rather severe and that they differ fundamentally from not being negligent. In other words, the retailer requires omni-diligence, and only if he brings such omni-diligence, can he be protected by this Section of the principal Act.
By this Clause, the onus of proof in a small and precise field of such omni-diligence will no longer be imposed on the retailer. Only if the goods are pre-packed, can the protection of the new Clause apply, and then, only if the pre-packing is of a certain character.
I want to make it clear that retailers and wholesalers do not seek to be exonerated from the obligation to examine everything they sell and they take full responsibility for everything they desire to sell. They ask, however, that the legislation under which they are to be prosecuted should descriminate between cases where they are able to examine the particular goods and cases where, on the other hand, there are good reasons why they cannot so examine those goods, except by the very drastic course of destroying that which they are trying to sell.
7.30 p.m.
There are three kinds of goods which can be sold, and three different degrees of reasonableness about assuming responsibility for them. First, the retailer buys certain goods in bulk and afterwards dispenses them. He may buy a drum of olive oil and dispense it. In such a case the proposed new Clause will not protect him. Then there are goods which he buys packed in transparent glass bottles and sealed by the manufacturers. In such cases the proposed new Clause will not protect him if he fails visually to examine the goods through the transparent glass container, but he will be protected if he does not go to the extent of breaking the seal and carrying out a chemical analysis. Finally, and most difficult of all, are goods which are so packed that the contents cannot be examined at all except by breaking the seal. In such a case the retailer cannot even examine them visually. If he breaks the seal he destroys the sales value of the commodity.
If, under the principal Act, he has to use all due diligence, it could reasonably be held that he should adopt the modern method of systematic sampling, by opening say 5 per cent. of all such pre-packed goods which cannot be examined visually and submitting them also to a chemical analysis. I am sure that that is not what the Committee desires, and the manufacturers have expressed their readiness to be regarded as the original and only defendants in cases concerning goods which are so pre-packed and sold with their seals unbroken.
I think the Committee will agree that retailers and wholesalers should not be subjected to prosecution in such cases. Similarly, it would probably also agree that the courts should not be used to catch the wrong person first, as a means of bringing to book a manufacturer who has sealed faulty goods so completely in a package. If the Minister cannot accept the proposed words I hope that he will be able to accept the principle underlying them and so afford some protection in cases where goods are pre-packed, and where any form of inspection or examination is impossible except by breaking the seal and rendering the goods unsaleable.

Dr. Hill: The nub of my hon. Friend's point is that in the case of pre-packed

goods we should dispense with the requirement of due diligence and substitute one of reasonable care. I am advised that the words "due diligence" appear frequently in our statutes and that the word "due," in particular, is sensibly interpreted by the courts. The essence of the question is the degree of diligence which is appropriate to the circumstances of the case, and I do urge my hon. Friend not to press this point.
There was one case in which it was sought to prosecute a man because he had not examined such goods in sufficient detail, but that case failed. There has been no trouble in this field, and I ask my hon. Friend to leave the matter as it stands at present, with the courts determining what is the appropriate degree of diligence to be applied by a wholesaler or retailer in the particular circumstances of the case.

Mr. Pitman: In view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.— [FURTHER PROVISIONS AS TO RESTRICTION OF PRIVATE SLAUGHTER HOUSES.]

(1) Subsection (2) of section sixty-one of the principal Act (which enables a local authority to pass a resolution determining upon the closure of private slaughterhouses in their district) shall have effect in relation to any resolution passed by a local authority under that subsection after the coming into force of this section as if for the reference therein to such date as may be fixed by the authority's resolution there were substituted a reference to the appointed date, which shall be a date fixed by the Minister if he approves the resolution.

(2) The Minister may, in giving or withholding his approval to a resolution of a local authority under the said subsection (2) or under subsection (2) of section four of the Slaughterhouses Act, 1954 (under which a local authority may resolve to restrict in future the grant of slaughterhouses licences in their district), being a resolution passed by the authority after the coming into force of this section, direct the authority to take such steps as he may specify for informing persons interested of the effect of the resolution and his decision thereon and also, in the case of a resolution which he has approved, of the date fixed by him as the appointed date for the purposes thereof; and the authority shall comply with any such direction.

(3) It is hereby declared that a person's entitlement under subsection (1) of section five of the said Act of 1954 (which provides


for compensation to be paid by a local authority on the closure of private slaughterhouses in their district) to compensation in respect of any interest of his in premises is not to be treated as taken away by any undertaking not to claim the compensation which may have been given in connection with the grant or renewal of a slaughterhouse licence as defined by that Act.

This subsection shall be deemed always to have had effect.—[Captain Duncan.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

First Schedule.—(APPLICATION OF CER TAIN PROVISIONS OF PRINCIPAL ACT AND THIS ACT TO NORTHERN IRELAND.)

Amendments made: In page 28, line 10, after "seventy-seven," insert "eightythree."—[The Solictor-General.]

In line 13, after "made," insert "by the Ministers."—[Mr. H. Strauss.]

In line 30, at end, insert:
(b) references to the Board of Trade shall be omitted, and references to regulations shall be construed as referring only to regulations made by the Ministers.

In page 29, line 43, column 2, at end, insert:
In subsection (4), for the reference to section ten of the principal Act there shall be substituted a reference to any corresponding Northern Irish enactment.

In page 30, line 39, column 2, at end, insert:
and the reference to regulations shall be construed accordingly.

In line 41, leave out paragraph 3.

In line 51, at end, insert:
5. Any expenses incurred in the enforcement or execution of regulations with respect to the importation of food (including milk) in Northern Ireland—

(a) if incurred by a health authority, shall be defrayed in like manner as expenses are defrayed under subsection (1) of section twenty-five of the Public Health and Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland), 1946, or under that section as amended or re-enacted (with or without modifications) by any Northern Irish enactment;
(b) if incurred by a port sanitary authority, shall be defrayed in like manner as expenses are defrayed under subsection (4) of section nine of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1896, or under that section as amended or re-enacted (with or without modifications) by any Northern Irish enactment.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule.—(MINOR AND CONSE QUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 31, line 34, at the end, to insert:
Section 10
In subsection (1), for the words "An authorised officer of a local authority" there shall be substituted the words "An authorised officer of a council"; and in subsection (4), for the words "an officer of a local authority, the authority" there shall be substituted the words "an authorised officer of a council, the council.
The purpose of this Amendment is to place the port health authority in the same position as a local authority in relation to applications which may be made to the justices for the destruction of unsound food. Hitherto, he has been omitted.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 31, leave out lines 44 to 46.—[Dr. Hill.]

Mr. Robert Jenkins: I beg to move, in page 32, line 5, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 9, and to insert:
For subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following subsection:
"(1) No person shall sell, or offer or expose for sale, or have in his possession for the purpose of sale or of preparation for sale, for human consumption any part of, or product derived wholly or partly from, an animal which has been slaughtered in a knacker's yard or of which the carcase has been brought into a knacker's yard.
The object of the Amendment is to make quite certain that the provisions of Section 19 of the principal Act are carried out in their entirety. There are three places where animals are slaughtered—the public abattoir, the licensed slaughterhouse and the knacker's yard. When local authorities examined the Bill they advised the Association of Municipal Corporations that it contained a loophole which should be stopped up. It is a very simple point, and I hope that the Minister will find himself able to accept it.
Section 19 of the 1938 Act provides that
No person shall sell or offer or expose for sale, for human consumption any part of any animal which has been slaughtered in a knacker's yard.
This provision clearly covers anything which may be described as part of an animal—for example, meat—but some


doubt has arisen as to its application to products derived from animals. For example, experience has shown that the expression,
any part of an animal
is not an apt description of the oil derived from the rendering down of parts of animals which have been killed in a knacker's yard. Again, if the blood is drained off and processed, it is questionable whether this product is part of an animal. It would appear to be possible, therefore, without contravening the present law, to derive oil products from a diseased horse in a knacker's yard, for the purpose of frying oil.
The object of Section 19 of the principal Act was to secure that what comes out of a knacker's yard is not used for, or in connection with, food for human beings. What I have described is clearly an anomaly, which was overlooked, and the purpose of the Amendment is to secure that the prohibition which already applies to the meat of animals slaughtered in a knacker's yard shall also apply to anything which may be produced by processing any part of such animals.

Dr. Hill: My hon. Friend obviously makes a good point in extending this prohibition to these products, and I would advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 32, line 11, leave out "Subsection (6)," and insert "The section."—[Dr. Hill.]

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 32, line 34, after "(2)," to insert:


(a) in paragraph (a), for the word "shall" there shall be substituted the words "may, and shall if so required by the Minister of Food"; and
(b),


This Amendment is small, but important. At present local authorities are required to make byelaws even if the establishment concerned is a public slaughterhouse owned and run by the local authority; and so we are introducing an elasticity which enables the local authority not to make such byelaws where the only place to which they can be applicable is a slaughterhouse in which only its own servants are employed.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. L. Thomas: I beg to move, in page 32, line 37, at the end, to insert:
Section 63
The words "belonging to the Port of London Authority or the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and" shall be omitted.
The purpose of this Amendment is to eliminate the dual jurisdiction which now exists over slaughterhouses and knackers' yards owned by port authorities by extending the exemption which is given by Section 63 of the 1938 Act to all ports and all harbour authorities. Part V of the 1938 Act deals with markets, slaughterhouses and cold-air stores, and it provides that they shall be used for such purposes only under licence from the local authority.
It further provides that local authorities can make byelaws as to their condition and about the maintenance of records, and so on. During the Committee stage of that Measure the Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board established a case for exemption from that part of the Measure, and it is Section 63 which gives them the exemption. The basis of their case was this duality of control. They have to get authority and approval from the Minister of Agriculture under the Diseases of Animals Acts, those that obtained at the time and the subsequent one of 1950. It is the purpose of this Amendment that the exemption contained in Section 63 of the 1938 Act shail extend to all ports. Thus, we shall end the duality that exists at the moment.

Dr. Hill: As all these harbour slaughterhouses will be under the scrutiny of the Minister of Agriculture there is a good case for removing this difference between one port and another, and I advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir Hugh Linstead: I beg to move, in page 33, line 17, to leave out from "words," to the end of line 18, and to insert:
the sample shall be submitted to the public analyst for some other area, or if for any reason the public analyst is unable to perform an effective analysis he shall submit it to the public analyst for some other area.
This Amendment seems to be one only of form, but it is an Amendment to which the Society of Public Analysts attaches considerable importance. It deals with


two separate eventualities. One is what happens to a sample submitted to analysis when the office of the public analyst in the area is vacant. In those circumstances, the sample has to be submitted to the public analyst for another area, to be submitted by whoever happens to have the sample in his possession.
The second part of the Amendment provides for the circumstance when the public analyst for an area is not in a position to test the sample because, it may be, he does not possess certain expensive apparatus necessary for the work. As the Bill stands, anyone can decide, on behalf of the public analyst, to send the sample elsewhere.
The purpose of the Amendment is not to leave it to a decision of the sampling officer or of a clerk in the department to take that rather important professional position, but to leave it to the public analyst for the area himself to decide that he is not in a position to undertake the analysis himself and that he should send the sample to another public analyst. It is a question of the professional status of the public analysts, to which they attach considerable importance. I think there is merit in it, and I hope it will commend itself to my hon. Friend.

Dr. Hill: I agree with my hon. Friend that the case he has put would appear to have some merit in it, and I will undertake that the point will be considered if he will withdraw his Amendment.

Sir H. Linstead: In these circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 33, line 26, at the beginning, to insert:
Throughout subsection (2), wherever the words "food or drug" occur there shall be added after those words the words "or substance.
This is a tidying up Amendment to bring in the word "substance."

Amendment agreed to.

Sir H. Linstead: I beg to move, in page 34, line 4, at the end, to insert:
In subsection (2) in paragraph (a) for the words "within seven days of the service of the summons," there shall be substituted the words "not later than three clear days before the date of the hearing.

These words relate to Section 84 of the 1938 Act and deal with the defence of a warranty. When the retailer has a sample taken from him he may pass the responsibility back to the manufacturer for any impurities in that sample. At present, he must give notice within seven day of the service of the summons that he proposes to rely on that warranty defence. In other words, once seven days have passed after the serving of the summons he has no opportunity of throwing back the responsibility to where it properly belongs.
It may be thought that analysis is necessary before he is in a position to determine whether or not he should accept the responsibility, and it seems unfortunate that time should run against the retailer in that way, and the purpose of the Amendment is to substitute for the time of seven days after service of the summons a period of not later than three clear days before the date of the hearing.
7.45 p.m.
If the retailer has a longer time to decide whether or not to accept responsibility or to pass it back, it may be said that the time of not later than three clear days before the date of the hearing will not give the manufacturer sufficient time to prepare his defence. That may be true in some cases, but it would in those cases be open to the manufacturer to apply for an adjournment of the court, and I have no doubt that in those circumstances an adjournment would be granted. I hope that these words will commend themselves to my hon. Friend.

Dr. Hill: There is a difficulty, particularly when a branch manager has to consult his head office in the matter of warranty, and as the local authorities, who are intimately concerned, raise no objection, I would advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 34. line 4, at the end, to insert:
In subsection (2), the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (c):—
"(c) in the case of a prosecution in respect of a sample of milk procured from him, the defendant either—

(i) has within sixty hours after the sample was procured served such a notice as is mentioned in paragraph (2) of the Third Schedule to this Act, or


(ii) not having served such a notice, proves that he had reasonable cause to believe that such a notice would have been of no effect by reason of the fact that the milk in question was a mixture of milk produced on more than one dairy farm."


This Amendment is in connection with the Amendment made to the principal Act in line 25 of page 35 of the Bill, which will remove from the dairyman who sells milk that has come from a number of different dairies or farms the defence that he has done nothing to the milk and that all he has done is to sell the milk precisely as he received it. If he is to have that defence he must be able to raise the defence even if the milk came to him from a number of different farms originally and he cannot specify which one it was.
If this Amendment is not made the Bill will take from the dairymen a defence they have at present.

Dr. Hill: My hon. Friend has made a good point. I advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 35, line 10, after "Health," to insert:
or, as the case may be, the Board of Trade.
This Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment by which the Board of Trade were given powers to make regulations on the labelling of food.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir H. Linstead: I beg to move, in page 35, line 12, at the end, to insert:
Section 94
At end, insert the following new subsection:
"(4) For the purpose of this section a public analyst shall be deemed to be an officer whether or not he is a full-time officer.
Section 94 of the 1938 Act provides a certain protection for officers of local authorities or county councils. Section 94 says that
An officer of a local authority shall not be personally liable in respect of any act done by him in the execution or purported execution of this Act … if he did that act in the honest belief that his duty … required … him to do it;".
There are two types of public analyst—the full-time public analyst, who is an

officer of a local authority and therefore enjoys the protection of Section 94 of the 1938 Act, and the part-time public analyst, who is paid not by salary but by fees. Technically, the latter is not an officer of a local authority, but there seems to be every reason why, in respect of the duties which he performs as a public analyst, he should enjoy the same protection as is afforded to a full-time public analyst.

Dr. Hill: I understand the point, but there is some doubt about the words, and perhaps my hon. Friend will accept my assurance that, if he withdraws the Amendment, I will put something on the Notice Paper for the Report stage.

Sir H. Linstead: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Robert Crouch: I beg to move, in page 35, line 18, after "fish," to insert "but does include poultry."
The object of the Amendment is to provide the Minister with adequate powers to deal with the control of poultry in slaughterhouses. Under the 1938 Act, it is laid down that the word "animal" does not include "bird." As we all know, poultry are birds. We want to give the Minister all the necessary power to inspect poultry as well as other food—that is, food available for human consumption—in slaughterhouses.
It is appropriate to take this step, bearing in mind the high percentage of tuberculosis among poultry. It is not infrequent that when there is an outbreak of disease on a farm, which may be due to something of that sort, the birds are put into a market or are killed. The Amendment would make it quite certain that before they were offered to the public the birds were inspected. These powers might often enable a bird infected with fowl pest to be seen before the outbreak became serious.

Dr. Hill: We want to do what my hon. Friend has in mind. By implication, however, the Amendment raises a number of other changes. If my hon. Friend will accept an assurance that we will find the appropriate form of words and will withdraw his Amendment, I will gladly give that assurance.

Mr. Crouch: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 35, line 24, at end, insert:
In the said subsection, after the definition of "authorised officer," there shall be inserted the following definition:
"catering premises" has the meaning assigned to it by subsection (7A) of section fourteen of this Act.'

In page 37, leave out lines 2 and 3, and insert:
The section shall cease to have effect.

In page 37, line 9, leave out "subparagraph (a) of paragraph 1," and insert:
paragraph 1 for the words 'they shall serve on him a notice' there shall be substituted the words 'they may serve on him a notice' and."—[Dr. Hill.]

In page 37, line 10, leave out "fourteen," and insert "twenty-one."— [Captain Duncan.]

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 37, line 10, at the end, to add:

THE SLAUGHTERHOUSES ACT, 1954

(2 & 3 Eliz. 2. c. 42)

Section 3

In subsection (3), for the words from "section thirteen of the said Act" to "preparation and distribution of food)" there shall be substituted the words "any regulations in force under section six of the Food and Drugs Amendment Act, 1954, relating to the construction, lay-out, equipment, cleanliness, ventilation, lighting or use of slaughterhouses or of any byelaws made by the authority and in force under section fifty-eight of the Food and Drugs Act, l938."

The Amendment is consequential on the passage of the Slaughterhouses Act, 1954.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Third Sehedule.—(REPEALS.)

Amendment made: In page 37, line 25, column 3, after "(3)," insert "paragraph (5)."—[Dr. Hill.]

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 38, line 3, column 3, to leave out from the beginning to "thirty-six," in line 5, column 3, and to insert "Sections thirty-four to."
This Amendment is consequential on the repeal of Section 34 of the 1938 Act, effected by an Amendment to the Second Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Hill: I beg to move in page 38, line 12, after "sixty-five," to insert "paragraph (d) and."
This Amendment is consequential on certain other repeals.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 38, line 40, after "Regulations," to insert "butter."
This and the next Amendment remove words which are no longer necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 38, line 42, after "Regulations," insert
margarine, margarine-cheese, milk-blended butter.

In line 47, column 3, leave out from "two," to "in," in line 51.—[Dr. Hill.]

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 39, column 3, to leave out lines 16 to 19 and to insert "Section thirty."
This Amendment is consequential on the repeal of Section 30 of the 1950 Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow: and to be printed. [Bill 157.]

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE (No. 2) [MONEY]

Resolution reported.

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934, the Road Traffic Act, 1934, and the Population (Statistics) Act, 1938, until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-five; and of the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, and the Licensing Act, 1953, until the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and fify-six, being expenses which under any Act are to be defrayed out of such moneys; and
(b) such issues out of the Consolidated Fund, the raising of such moneys under the National Loans Act, 1939, and such payments into the Exchequer, as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Civil Contingencies Fund Act, 1952, until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-five.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE (No. 2) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. H. HYND in the Chair]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 6 to 8.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I wonder whether at this stage, Mr. Hynd, I could ask you how it is proposed to deal with the Schedule. There are one or two Amendments to it on the Order Paper, and it occurs to us that you might prefer to take the Amendments first, but we on this side of the Committee, and perhaps hon. Members opposite, are anxious that we should not lose our right to discuss other points in both Parts I and II of the Schedule, if we are so minded.

The Temporary Chairman: That will be quite in order.

Mr. Ede: The lines which we seek to omit deal with the power of the Government to make regulations concerning aliens. We had a discussion on this matter last year, and at that time the then Home Secretary had just presented to the House a new order in which were included all the regulations which it was proposed to operate in the future. In fact, he wiped out 21 previous orders and amending orders and the whole work was consolidated into one order, which certainly was very convenient for reference by those people who had to have recourse to the document. The order was approved by the House shortly after the debate on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill last year. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) moved a Prayer against it, which was withdrawn after fairly lengthy discussion.
My hon. Friends on this side and myself urged upon the Government that, having consolidated the orders, the order which we then had in front of us could, with advantage, be considered as a Bill—and we still remain of that opinion. Because we had to take or leave the order as a whole, we were not able to move Amendments to particular orders or to particular articles in the orders, or to move that particular articles should be left out. The only issue in front of the House was whether the order should be confirmed or not. We thought then, and we continue to think, that it is time that this matter was considered in detail by the House of Commons.
This Act which we propose tonight to renew was passed in 1919. We have seen very considerable changes in international affairs during the 35 years that have elapsed since then, and we think that it is high time that the House should have an opportunity of considering the matter as a whole.
Last year the Under-Secretary of State told us that 207 deportation orders had been made, and I hope that he will be able to tell us tonight the number of deportation orders that have been made during the current year, and, if possible, how many of them have been executed. There was one deportation order made during the past year which aroused the utmost misgivings among my hon. Friends and which also excited great interest in the country. I think that we are entitled tonight to know from the


Under-Secretary that no such order is likely to be made again.
I allude to the order made against Dr. Joseph Cort. I am hopeful that no such order will be made again, because I think that the answers given to some of my hon. Friends and myself last Thursday, with regard to the police inquiries in the case of Mr. Owen Lattimore, which was then raised, indicate that the new occupant of the Home Secretaryship takes a more enlightened and traditional view of this matter than did his immediate predecessor.
If I thought that the case of Dr. Joseph Cort was likely to be repeated in similar circumstances, I should advise my hon. Friends to vote for the Amendment which I am moving tonight. It was an astounding thing that Dr. Joseph Cort left this country a refugee from political persecution in a country of the Right, when, at the same time, the Home Secretary was engaged in taking off that very same ship a man who claimed that he was liable to political persecution by the Left.
I regard political persecution as a crime against humanity, no matter by whom it is committed. It is no excuse to say that the country in which political persecution may be applied is one in which standards of freedom closely approximating to those observed in this country are normally the rule, when, in fact, in that particular case there could be no doubt that a persecution of a political nature was intended. I think that we should all regard with dissatisfaction the fact that this particular man had to leave this country. It is true that he left under his own power, so that he might go to the place that he chose, but I certainly hope that no similar case will occur in the future.
This man was doing very valuable work in this country. He was a specialist in medical studies. He had been appointed by the Birmingham University to a position of some importance, and as there was no British applicant for the post when he was appointed he was not keeping a British subject out of the job. He was, in fact, doing very valuable work. His wife also was employed in a hospital in another part of the country, and these two people left the country owing to the action taken by the Home Secretary.
This was not a case in which extradition was asked for. In fact, there was no extradition law applicable to the circum-

stances. The dispute between this man and the authorities in the United States had been going on for two or three years, and those of us who have read the correspondence in detail know the man's fears, that if he returned to the United States he would be the subject of very detailed inquiry, not into his actions, but into the opinions he had held when he was a young man, which, like those of many young men, were pretty far to the Left.
The consequences of that would be that he would probably suffer the same fate as some of the men with whom he had been associated in his earlier days, who had been deprived of their jobs in circumstances which meant that they would never be employed again in American educational institutions, in the reign of terror which exists there at the moment when it is suggested that anybody has held opinions of the Left. And there was a very strong possibility that he might be imprisoned. This man, whose medical category was of the very lowest, was asked to report under the kind of National Service Act that they have there so that he might again be examined to see whether his stay in the notorious health resort of Birmingham had so improved him that he could be drafted into that service.
It is not an extraditable offence to be a person wanted by Senator McCarthy. I had to deal with the case of Gerhardt Eisler, who managed to escape from the United States and was taken off the ship in this country and brought before the Metropolitan magistrate. He was charged with making a false declaration. First, it was said that he would be charged with perjury, which is an extraditable offence, but in fact he was charged with making a false declaration. As a result the Metropolitan magistrate, bound by the law, said that it was not an extraditable offence and, therefore, Gerhardt Eisler was entitled to continue on his journey.
Even if the Metropolitan magistrate had said that it was an extraditable offence, the Home Secretary of the day would then have had to determine whether it was a political offence or an offence other than political. If it is a political offence, it is his duty to see that the man is given political asylum in this country. In the present case, no effort was made to extradite this man, because he was not at that moment charged with


any offence. He was doing a good job in this country. He was highly thought of in the University of Birmingham and, as what had happened at the time of his appointment proved, there was no one else in the country to take his place.
What happened? The United States Government said that if he did not return to the United States, they would cancel his United States citizenship.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: They might cancel it.

Mr. Ede: We get to the old conflict between "may" and "shall." "Might" and "will" are fairly interchangeable terms, and I want to put the case at its highest. The Home Secretary had reasonable grounds to fear that this man would be a stateless person and that, therefore, there would have been grave difficulty in deporting him if at a later date this university lecturer suddenly developed into some form of criminal so bad that it was desirable to return him to the place from whence he came. It was on that—I do not know whether it was a promise or a threat—that the Home Secretary decided that this man could no longer remain in this country.
There are many of us who think that the reputation of this country as a place where men may think and speak in accordance with conscience is one of the things that we should maintain and that we should continue to be the country in which people who cannot think and speak fearlessly should find a place where they can enjoy the ordinary freedom that civilised beings ought to have.
8.15 p.m.
We were very distressed at this case. I rejoice that the man has found a place other than the United States to which he could go and that there was one country—I believe there was another, but the question of the man's wife made some difficulties—where this man was given asylum. I think it was a very bad thing that a man threatened with deportation from this country should find refuge and asylum only behind the Iron Curtain. Being a Communist is not a criminal offence in this country. Having been a Communist in one's earlier days is certainly no criminal offence here. We expect people in this country to hold rather advanced views in their youth. Look at

the present Prime Minister. With his past in this country, he would hold no office in the United States. What he said in 1911 about the other place would be quite sufficient to mark him as so great a revolutionary that he should be kept well out of office and out of Government.
We raise this issue tonight because we regard the action in this case as something which is a smear on the liberal reputation of this country, and we hope that it will not occur again. I am one of those who thinks that it is a mistake to have a distinguished lawyer as Home Secretary. Particularly in this sphere, the commonsense of the ordinary Englishman is more likely to guide that great Department with success than the highly legalisitic tendencies that distinguished lawyers are apt to show on some of these occasions.
I remember the depuation of my hon. Friends to see the former Home Secretary on this matter. We put the case before him with every plea that we could think of. The answer we got was that he was not convinced that if this man went back to the United States any harm would befall him. One can only point to what has happened to his associates in refutation of any belief that this man would meet with other than the severest punishment that was available if he went back.
The administration of the Aliens Act is a very important duty of the Home Secretary. The House of Commons gives enormous powers to the Home Secretary in the matter of deportation. Article 20 (2) of the Order which the House granted to the Home Secretary last year is worded thus:
A deportation order may be made in the case of an alien in the following circumstances, that is to say—
(b) if the Secretary of State deems it to be conducive to the public good to make a deportation order against the alien.
When the Home Secretary reaches that decision and makes his order, that man's continued residence in this country becomes impossible.
Such a great power over the life of a fellow human being ought to be used with the utmost care and caution. The possibilities as well as the probabilities of what will happen to the man if the deportation order is enforced ought to be


taken into consideration. I cannot think that in the case of Dr. Cort this power was legitimately used, and I say to the Joint Under-Secretary that a repetition of the kind of incidents which I have detailed would compel my right hon. and hon Friends to feel that this is a power which should be withdrawn from the Home Secretary.

Mr. S. Silverman: I should like to say a few words in support of the view advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I do it with some diffidence, because he speaks with very great authority, having held for a number of years the post of Home Secretary and having, therefore, an intimate personal knowledge on these matters. As this is a matter on which I have ventured to trouble the Committee now year after year for a number of years, I thought that perhaps I might be excused for adding my words to what my right hon. Friend said.
What is it, after all, that the Committee is being asked to do? It is being asked, after 35 years, to continue on a temporary year-to-year basis an Act which gives the Home Secretary absolute power over the liberty and, in some cases, the life of a large number of people living in our midst.
We have said now for a long time that, if we are to give powers of this kind to one man, then the legislative instruments whereby we give them should be the considered detailed judgment of the House of Commons and not a matter of delegated legislation. Last year, all the various orders that have been made—I have forgotten how many there were, but I am told that there were 21—were reviewed, some were deleted and some amended, and they were combined for the first time in 34 years into one legislative enactment. That was an enactment which the House of Commons could not amend.
It is wrong that we should deal with questions of personal and civil liberty in that fashion. Liberty is an inappropriate subject for delegated legislation. I should have thought that right hon. and hon. Members opposite who think that delegated legislation is a bad thing in all respects might well have supported us in the belief that at any rate it is a bad thing in questions which affect the life and liberty of human beings.
We were told then that we need not be unduly disturbed and that in no case was the Home Secretary's discretion in these matters exercised except by the Home Secretary himself personally; that it was his statutory duty to look at the matters and not to delegate them to his Under-Secretary or to a permanent official. We were assured that he did his duty in every case. I do not question that assurance, but, in view of that, is it not rather an unworthy thing—perhaps that is too strong a word; an unusual thing—that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who is now Home Secretary and who, if the Committee accept the Schedule unamended, will have the responsibility in future for exercising these powers, should not be here tonight to hear a discussion which he must have anticipated would take place?
I shall listen with great interest, as I always do, to what the Joint Under-Secretary will have to say. I recognise that there is a special reason why he should deal with the particular case which my right hon. Friend raised because he was then, as he is now, at the Home Office and the present Home Secretary was not. However, there is nothing we can do about Dr. Cort. The importance of discussing Dr. Cort's case now is not in order to put anything right that was then wrongly done, but so that the Home Secretary in dealing with these matters in future shall know what the feeling of the House of Commons is about them.
We say, as some of us have said for many years, that there ought to be a Bill with a Committee stage, not delegated legislation to cover it, and that the Committee ought not indefinitely, year after year, to go on dealing with these matters on a year-to-year basis with delegated legislation on a permanent basis. If there were such a Committee stage, many of us—certainly I—would think that where a question of deportation arises the responsibility of dealing with it ought not to rest upon the shoulders of one individual, no matter what office he occupies. There ought to be some right of appeal. There ought to be some medium for third-party judgment. The man whose deportation is in question should have the right to be confronted by those who think he should be deported. He should know why. He should have the right to cross-examine


them, and the right to call evidence himself. He should have the right to have third-party judgment on his case.
Many of us said this last year, and many of us have said it many times. I do not want to labour the point now, but the particular case of Dr. Cort shows how impossible it is to rely on the judicial discretion of a political Secretary of State.

Mr. Raymond Gower: The hon. Gentleman is going somewhat further than his right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) did, is not he not? As I understood it, his right hon. Friend made a strong case that the Home Secretary of the day should perhaps act in a different manner and, preferably, should not be a lawyer. The hon. Gentleman appears to be advocating a complete change in the existing system. I think I follow him correctly.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I do not know whether it is very important whether everything that I think is exactly what my right hon. Friend thinks. I am sure that in some cases it is and in some other cases it is not. However, I do not think there is any very great difference of view between us on this point. I think that my right hon. Friend said in a previous speech that there ought to be an Act of Parliament. Whether he agrees with me or does not agree with me on the question whether, in that Act of Parliament, there ought to be some other method of dealing with these cases than leaving them to the absolute, unfettered, unappealable discretion of a single Minister, is a matter which we can discuss in time. At the moment, I am presenting my own view to the Committee.

Mr. Gower: I am terribly sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but I wish to ask him this question. Did he not imply that there should be a legal trial of the case, with witnesses and, presumably, a right of appeal to a higher tribunal?

Mr. Silverman: I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman, if he will have a little patience, will know by the time I come to the end of my argument what it is that I am trying to persuade the Committee to agree with. I have said nothing about a court of law, though a court of law

is conceivable. I have said nothing about further and further appeals from that court of law, though that would be conceivable too. All I have said so far is that I prefer, in principle, third-party judgment to ex-parte pronouncements in matters of individual liberty.
I have said that a man against whom deportation is threatened should know why. I have said that he should have the opportunity of hearing what evidence there is against him. I have said that he should have the opportunity of cross-examining upon the evidence. I have said that he should have the opportunity of calling evidence in rebuttal of it and evidence on his own behalf. Does the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) differ from any of that? Which of those opportunities does he think that Dr. Cort was not entitled to have? What is wrong with them?
The very country in whose interests permission for Dr. Cort to stay here was refused, the United States, does not deport people without a right of appeal. Why should we? When Cedric Belfrage was threatened with a deportation order, it did not depend on the American Secretary of State or upon Senator McCarthy or any other individual holding office or not holding office to decide the issue for himself. Cedric Belfrage was entitled to appeal to some kind of tribunal. All I am saying is that we might at least do the same ourselves.
I was saying that when we advanced these arguments last year we were assured that we need not worry very much, that the Home Secretary always acted in these matters with the greatest discretion and care, and that no one had ever been deported except for such overwhelming reasons that every Member of the House of Commons would support the Home Secretary in the action which he took. I am not quoting verbatim, but I think it will not be contested that that was the spirit of the then Home Secretary's speech to the House. We were assured that, although we have these powers, although they are unlimited, and not fettered in any way, we never exercise the right to deport a man unless there is such overwhelmingly good reason for it that no one would think that we could do anything else.
I now want to quote the Joint Under-Secretary of State on the point. I am


quoting from Volume 521 of HANSARD, at column 565, and I am going to read two paragraphs only. [HON. MEMBERS: "What date?"] The date is 26th November, 1953, just about a year ago, and the debate was on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill in Committee. I will read the whole passage:
May I say a word about deportation, which has been mentioned? There have been 207 deportation orders made this year, and, in fact, in only two of these cases were the individuals concerned in this country before the war. They were both cases which were considered most carefully and in which there were strong reasons for deporting them, and that is really the answer to hon. Members who suggest that individuals who have spent their entire lives here are whisked away without their cases being considered.
It is quite essential to retain this power to deport as a counterpart to the control of entry of aliens. If we did not possess this power to deport, it would be open to anyone to come here on a visit and later on say simply, 'I am not going away,' and the control of aliens would disappear. Every sovereign State reserves this right.
and then follows a reference to the Declaration on Human Rights. The hon. Gentleman continued:
If I may refer to the really relevant paragraph in the Declaration of Human Rights, it runs as follows: 'In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.'
What did the hon. Gentleman have to say about that in relation to Home Office practice?—He said:
It is exactly for these purposes that we ask the House to renew these powers for a year now. The power must be discretionary, and we could not deal with it on any other basis."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1953; Vol. 521, c. 565.]
What is the hon. Gentleman saying? He is saying, "We need this power, and we shall exercise it exactly for these purposes"—the purposes of the relevant paragraph, as he correctly described it, in the Declaration of Human Rights which he quoted. Will he tell the Committee how he fits Dr. Cort's case into that paragraph? What had Dr. Cort done which was an offence against—
due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others …
What had he done that was in conflict with the duty of—

meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
Anything? What complaint had the Home Office against him? Confessedly, none at all. My right hon. Friend has described the employment which he held and how he came to hold it. May I add that he held it all this time with the full knowledge and consent of the Minister of Labour and of the Home Secretary, who had been consulted and who knew that the appointment was intended to be of a permanent nature.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): His permission to say here was expressly stated to be temporary.

Mr. Silverman: I did not say anything to the contrary. What I said was—and I repeat the words in case the hon. Gentleman did not hear them the first time—that he was here in employment which the Home Secretary knew all about and which he had known all about for years, which the Minister of Labour knew all about and which he also had known all about for years, and that both of them knew that the offer to Dr. Cort had a permanent basis. It had, and they knew it had, and that is what I said. The hon. Gentleman does not deny it.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he knew this was intended to be permanent. Apparently, Dr. Cort applied for a permanent appointment. He was told that he could not have a permanent appointment but only a temporary one.

Mr. Silverman: I think that the hon. Gentleman is completely mistaken. What Dr. Cort applied for was permanent residence here. He was told that he could not have permanent residence but only temporary residence here. That is quite another matter. I was not talking about his application for permanent residence, but the plain fact that the employment offered to him at Birmingham was permanent and that the Ministry of Labour and the Home Office gave their consent to his taking it. It is not suggested by the Home Office that they would ever have interfered with his continued residence—if you like on a temporary basis—but for the incidents in America to which my right hon. Friend has referred.
When we talk about "temporary basis from year to year" we may be talking about a long time. This very legislation has been continued from year to year on a temporary basis for 35 years. It is perfectly possible to do things on a temporary basis, and do them periodically for successive periods, reserving to ourselves the academic right not to renew at some future time, but knowing all the time that we do not intend, on our present knowledge, to exercise any such right. It is not contended at all that, but for those matters, there would have been any interference. What were the matters?

The Temporary Chairman: It is not in order to discuss details of administration. I have been patiently allowing the case of Dr. Cort to be used as an illustration. I hope that the hon. Member is not going into the details of that case.

Mr. Silverman: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Hynd. I was not going into details. I expressly said that there was nothing we could do about it, because the case was over. I am only using it as a test which the Committee ought to apply when the Government ask us to continue this temporary legislation on this temporary basis, on the plea that the discretion is always so widely exercised that the Committee need have no fear.
If the argument in that case be applied to other cases the Committee will see how serious it can become. The Government have said in that case, "We have nothing against this man." His own country has nothing against him which it could put forward under the extradition laws as a ground for his return. They say, however, "He has done something, according to what we are told by the United States authorities, that may lead the United States authorities to cancel his citizenship. That would mean he would be a Stateless person, which means that if ever we should want to deport him we would not be able to do it."
8.45 p.m.
That is a highly hypothetical set of circumstances. But the danger is that if the Home Office continues to act on that principle, the whole basis of political asylum and of the extradition laws will be

undermined. There will be no protection left in them for anybody, because any country which cannot get back on to its own territory a citizen which it would like to have back, can, on this principle, get him returned at once merely by saying to our Home Office, "Next week we are going to cancel this man's citizenship, so you had better return him this week. Next week you will not be able to."
If that is a sound principle, then there can be no political asylum left and no protection at all. No doubt the Joint Under-Secretary of State will say, "Ah yes, but had we been satisfied that by deporting this man to the United States of America he would really have been in danger, then we would not have done it." Let us test that. Somebody in the Home Office allowed a most curious letter to be written on this point, which, I am glad to say, the Home Secretary, in an interview which some of us had with him, expressly repudiated. But it was written on the authority of the Home Office. What was written in the letter was that unless his life was in danger there was no question of political asylum.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member is still on this particular illustration. I hope that he will soon leave it and come to the point before the Committee.

Mr. Silverman: It is a very useful illustration, Mr. Hynd, and I am only using it as a scientist would use a germ in a test tube.

The Temporary Chairman: I know, but I am under the instructions of the House to conduct this debate in a proper manner, and in a debate on this Bill it is not in order to discuss details of administration. Now the hon. Member is about to quote a letter. Nothing could be more detailed than that.

Mr. Silverman: I am not quoting the letter for the sake of the letter, Mr. Hynd, and I am sorry if I am putting forward my argument so clumsily and ambiguously. What I am saying is that this letter expressed a principle upon which somebody in the Home Office thought that he was entitled to act, and, presumably, will continue to think that he is entitled to act.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the letter written by Dr. Cort himself? I think he is.

Mr. Silverman: All the documents are in the possession of the Home Secretary, and——

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It was written by Dr. Cort himself.

Mr. Silverman: It was not denied by the Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman must allow me to complete my sentence, and then he can attack it if he likes.

Mr. Gower: How is it possible, Mr. Hynd, for the Committee to decide an argument which is based on references which the Committee cannot see?

The Temporary Chairman: That is the kind of difficulty into which we are getting. The point before the Committee is whether this Act should continue for one year.

Mr. Silverman: I will leave the point forthwith, except to remind the hon. Gentleman who was present at the interview that when this matter was brought to the attention of his right hon. and learned Friend, his right hon. and learned Friend said that it had been an error. Perhaps on that ground alone one can safely leave it there.
The point is that these tests of political asylum are becoming extremely blurred. We used to know what it meant. We used to think that it meant that if a man, for political, racial, or religious reasons was in danger of persecution in his own country, we would afford him refuge and asylum. What did the Home Secretary say in this case? He said, "I am not convinced that anything will happen to him or that anything political is involved, and unless I am so convinced no question of political asylum arises."
As my right hon. Friend has already pointed out, on the ship on which Dr. Cort left this country there was another case. Perhaps, as we are now coming to a different case in order to compare the one with the other, it will be seen why I have preferred to rely on cases and to compare them, rather than to rely on mere vague generalisations. On this ship, there was a man called Klimowicz—a Pole. He had come to this country as a stowaway. He was found when the

ship came to port, and I think an attempt was made to get him ashore. The attempt did not succeed. The master of the ship drew the attention of the authorities to the fact that he had a stowaway on board. The immigration officer, whose duty it was, served upon the master of the ship a written notice directing him to keep the stowaway on board and take him back to Poland.
At some stage the Home Secretary changed his mind, and ultimately—I leave out the intervening stages, about which there might be interesting comment which might not be so relevant to the present argument—the Home Secretary granted him political asylum. But, so far as we know, the Home Secretary knew nothing whatever about this matter, except that the man had been to this country before as a member of the crew of the same boat, and had so misbehaved himself as to be prosecuted by the English police in the English courts for offences against our law.
At what stage did the Home Secretary come to the conclusion that Mr. Klimowicz was a political refugee seeking political asylum? Does he really say that this was a stronger case than Dr. Cort's? This was not a man who had been resident here for nearly four years. This was not a man who had been employed in one of our universities on work valuable to this country. This was not a man for whom the Chancellor of that university, and a number of other eminent people, had made representations on the ground that he was a political refugee. I do not know whether Mr. Klimowicz was a political refugee. Perhaps he was. If the Home Secretary thought that it was right to give him political refuge I am making no complaint. Whether or not this Pole was a political refugee, I am certainly not the person to say that the Home Secretary should not have done so. But I think one is entitled to contrast the two cases and to ask the Home Secretary to explain on what principle he exercises his discretionary authority which is vested solely in himself without appeal.
Are we reaching the stage—I hope we are not—when we think that granting political refuge means granting asylum to the people with whom we agree and refusing it to people with whom we do not agree? Is it a question of affording political asylum to those who take our


view, or something like our view, in the great ideological conflicts that are raging throughout the world and will rage, I suppose, for the greater part of the century?
It is a poor kind of political asylum by which Communist countries give political asylum to Communists and anti-Communist countries give political asylum to anti-Communists. That is not political asylum at all. It may be a good thing to do, but it is quite a different matter, and it is out of harmony with all those principles of civil liberty and humanitarian doctrine which gave this country for so many years a preeminent place in the world as the world's leading defender of liberty and humanity.
The essence of tolerance is to tolerate not the man we agree with but the man we do not agree with. If we do not do that, we have not begun to understand what tolerance means. If we take these two cases together, we see on what grounds it is impossible for the House of Commons any longer to continue to repose confidence, in the discharge of these duties, in the unfettered discretion of one politician against whose decision there is no appeal.

Mr. Gower: The Committee has heard two absorbingly interesting speeches, one from the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), based upon his own distinguished tenure of that important office, and another from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who always speaks with a good deal of information on these subjects.
I think that the intervention that I made was justified by the divergencies of these speeches. In so far as the speech of the right hon. Member for South Shields, if I do not interpret him wrongly, was to the effect that the House of Commons, being called upon to renew these powers, should ponder carefully before doing so. Basing his views upon his own experience of this office, he does not consider the existing procedure unsatisfactory, providing that it is administered in accordance with the general feelings of the people and of this House generally.

Mr. Ede: I would not like the hon. Gentleman to draw that deduction from what I said. I was merely dealing with

the issue before me. While I do not agree with all the details of the proposed amendments to the law suggested by my hon. Friend, I certainly think there should be considerable amendments.

Mr. Gower: I certainly accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I think he will agree that the tenor of his remarks was that, with some minor modifications, the existing procedure, embodying this important discretionary power, for affording justice to these people was generally satisfactory and had been over a long period of years, while, on the other hand, the case of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is that this power should no longer be exercised by one man. I think the hon. Member several times reiterated that opinion. Indeed, he suggested that it should be a different kind of inquest into the right of an alien to remain here, and that he should appear before some form of tribunal to which there would be some right of appeal.
Many of us would agree with the general sentiments which have been expressed. We would all agree, as a people with a history of liberal democracy, that we certainly want all people who are genuine political refugees to find asylum in this country. It has long been the glory of our society that people of divergent views can so forcibly argue with each other. I am sure that many hon. Members, like me, have taken visitors to this country to Hyde Park Corner and similar places to see that practice. But we are now arguing within narrow limits. I am sure that many of us on this side can see reasons for either of the views which have been expressed, but it is difficult to agree with both views at the same time.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is it difficult for this Committee to assent to the proposition that the continuation of these powers, whatever they are to be, should be determined by an Act of Parliament and not by delegated legislation?

Mr. Gower: I was just about to say, that my first reaction is to agree with the view of the hon. Member. I suppose he is rather surprised. I believe that in the future, but, certainly not tonight, Governments must give careful attention to this whole problem.

Mr. Silverman: Home Secretary after Home Secretary has said that, year after year, for over 30 years.

Mr. Gower: But, on reflection, I would add that there must be some sound historical reasons why this particular power has been vested in a Minister in this way and not in a tribunal. Such a fundamental alteration in the law is a matter that should not be decided without very great consideration.
I certainly do not accept the statements made from the other side of the House. The right hon. Member for South Shields implied that the exercise of this power by the Home Secretary is completely unfettered, that he could do as he pleased, that if he wished to allow a person in he could do so; if, on the other hand, he did not wish a person to come in, he could stop him. I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that to some extent this is governed, if not by strict rules of precedent, by the customs which have been built up by successive Home Secretaries, as, indeed, with the other discretionary power of the death penalty.
I think the right hon. Gentleman will probably concede—and it is the feeling of the vast majority of us on this side of the Committee—that the former Home Secretary, in the circumstances in which he was placed—and I shall not develop this for reasons on which your predecessor in the Chair, Sir Rhys, has already given his Ruling—was just as bound by these customs and precedents to arrive at the decisions at which he did arrive.

Mr. Ede: My statement was that it was in defiance of all precedents that asylum was denied this man.

Mr. Gower: That is surely a matter of opinion, on which both sides of the Committee disagree.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I do not think it is in order to discuss details of these cases on this Amendment.

Mr. Gower: In conclusion, I reject one point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. Surely he was not serious when he compared the erratic behaviour of some Americans with the complete negation of freedom in some of the countries behind the Iron Curtain.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman really must not say anything like that. I never made any comparison of any sort or kind. All I said was that it would be a poor thing if political asylum in the world generally were reduced to the giving of asylum to a Communist by Communist countries and to an anti-Communist by anti-Communist countries.

Mr. Gower: The comparison which the hon. Member drew was the refusal to allow one person to enter from the United States with the permission granted to a Pole. He omitted to mention the fact that it is no crime to try to leave the United States. It is certainly not a capital offence while, undoubtedly, from all our knowledge, it is a capital offence to try to leave Poland or Russia.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member must get his facts right. One cannot leave the United States without a passport, and no citizen of the United States who wanted to go to a Communist country—

The Deputy-Chairman: Whether or not the hon. Member gets his facts right, they do not appear to me to be relevant.

Mr. Gower: They were all based upon what has gone before, and I was merely replying to statements made, Sir Rhys. I agree with the former Home Secretary that the Committee should carefully scrutinise the powers which it grants to any Home Secretary, but it cannot, at this stage, alter the whole procedure for dealing with this very difficult problem.

Dr. Barnett Stross: The Committee is greatly indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for the way in which he opened the case and for the arguments which he adduced. I do not intend to quote any specific case, because I wish to keep within the bounds of order if possible. My question relates to Interpol. Does the Under-Secretary remember that in connection with the case of Dr. Cort, as a member of the deputation which went to see the Home Secretary——

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but I cannot believe that a question relating to Interpol is material or relevant to the debate. I do not know what point the hon. Member seeks to make, but I do not wish to


appear discourteous to him by having to refuse to answer his question on the grounds that it is out of order.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is out of order.

Dr. Stross: As we are discussing the question whether we should permit this law to remain on the Statute Book for another year, can the Under-Secretary tell me whether the promise given by the former Home Secretary upon this matter—which involves a question of principle, namely, whether our police can, at the request of a foreign Power, put questions on behalf of that foreign Power to foreign residents in this country—has been kept, and whether anything has been done to see that such action has not been repeated?

The Deputy-Chairman: That appears to be a question of administration, and such questions are not in order in discussing the Amendment.

Dr. Stross: I have asked my question, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary will take note of it. With due respect, Sir Rhys, my view is that it is particularly germane to the matter if it is the kind of administrative point which makes us get up on our feet and show ourselves as intolerant of the constant continuation of this law year by year.
Let me put another point to the Under-Secretary of State. Parliament, by statute, gives the Home Secretary these specific powers, and has continued them, as we have heard, for over 30 years year by year. Among the powers is a power to deport anyone who is not a British citizen by birth or by naturalisation. Therefore, the power that the Home Secretary has is very great. By statute we have given him certain rights in the matter. For example, no one who is refused permission to become a naturalised citizen can ask him why. He has no right to ask why. The hon. Gentleman will recall that I wrote to him about a constituent of mine two days ago. The citizen cannot ask why he is refused, nor can he ever know whether the reason will ever be rendered to him.
I put this question to the Under-Secretary of State. Does he think it reasonable that the statute should be continued in this way year by year by dele

gated legislation which gives a power to the Home Secretary to act as judge in a case without revealing the reasons for his decision, without allowing himself to be questioned about his decision? I think that this is a very good reason why we should not continue these powers in this way any longer, but should have them under review and, if they are required, have them in an Act of Parliament. It will be most interesting to see whether in his answer the hon. Gentleman will make any suggestion about when the time will come when we shall change our procedure.

Mr. Kenneth Younger: I want to support what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and a good deal of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), though I differ from him in not being one of those who seek to attack the whole of the discretionary system of the Aliens Order.
My point of view is that precisely because this Act gives the Home Secretary such a complete discretion to deal with aliens as he thinks fit he has a special obligation to deal with them according to correct principles. I want to refer to one or two aspects of a principle that the Under-Secretary of State seemed to be invoking when we had our detailed discussion of the case of Dr. Cort, in July; but I do not want to refer to that case except in so far as may be necessary to make my general point.
Let us consider the case of an alien in this country who is fairly well known, who has been a year or two in the country, who is legitimately employed, and against whom nothing is known. He has the nationality of another country, and, therefore, in the Home Office phrase he is "returnable." That is to say that if he were to do something to which the Home Secretary took exception there would be some other country to which he could be sent back because he has the nationality of that country.
Then, during his stay here, something happens in that country of his nationality that changes the position. In that country a law is passed which includes among the penalties a provision for loss of nationality. A situation newly arises where people of that country who are abroad may suddenly find that their nationality


is lost. Therefore, in the Home Office phrase, they will cease to be returnable because there is no longer any country to which the Home Secretary can forcibly return them.
Provisions of that kind in the law of any foreign country are out of accord with, out of the spirit of, our modern legislation. From the point of view of British legal history we could say that they are a throwback to the old system of outlawry from which we freed ourselves more or less at the same time as we became free of the arbitrary system of imprisonment on political grounds. Such provisions are a reversion to what we used to call oulawry.
It seems to me to be a very dangerous thing for the Home Secretary to say that he will stick slavishly to the principle of returnability in circumstances of that kind, because, normally, a foreign country can get back one of its nationals from abroad only under the very strict terms of its extradition legislation. Extradition legislation is passed precisely because it is known that the legal systems of different countries differ and it is, therefore, thought that individuals should not be returned from one country to another against their will, except under very closely-stated safeguards.
9.15 p.m.
Right hon. Gentlemen opposite appeared to take the view in this case that it would all have been quite different had they been satisfied that, on return to his own country, the alien would be subject to persecution in the sense in which that term is used when we are discussing extradition or political asylum—in other words, that he would be suffering danger to life or liberty. But this principle does not stand or fall by the answer to that question.
Let us see how it would work out. Imagine a country—I think there are several which fall into this category—which, without being in the full sense a totalitarian country, nevertheless imposes certain restrictions upon its citizens, particularly in the field of free speech. Think of a country which has various forms of censorship. Suppose a national of that country were to come to Britain and to write or speak in a way which, had he been at home, would have contravened those laws; and suppose his

Government think that it would like to stop all their citizens from going abroad and talking in this free manner.
Is it to be possible for such a Government merely to pass some legislation of their own, in which they include among their penalties that any of their nationals abroad who infringes these rules is to be liable to lose his nationality, for the British Home Secretary to say, "I am sorry. This journalist, from whichever country it may be, has written this article, his Government have taken exception to it and in respect of it have threatened to deprive him of his nationality; and they are entitled to have him back. I cannot keep him because he is not returnable"? Is that the principle to which the Home Secretary now wishes to commit himself? This matter does not turn on the question of whether the particular inconveniences which Dr. Cort was believed likely to suffer if he went back to the United States measured up to those which we apply to political persecution in respect of the law of asylum.
I think that the Home Secretary has opened the operation of this Act and this Order to very dangerous possibilities. As far as we know, this is the first case of the kind in which this discretion has been so wrongly exercised. There was absolutely no reason for the Home Secretary to have taken the action which he took. Nobody was asking him to make some great general declaration that the political situation in the United States was such as to amount to political persecution. He could have done no such thing, and nobody asked him to do it.
All that was needed on his part was a little masterly inactivity, simply to allow a man who had been three years in this country doing a decent job to go on doing a decent job for a little longer. There would have been no complaints from any quarter in this country, and, to do the United States authorities justice, I do not believe they ever made any complaints or ever demanded from the Home Secretary that he should take any action to force their national back to his own country
I believe that by taking the action which he took the Home Secretary has betrayed the very fine liberal tradition of the Home Office. I am not disputing that he was entitled in terms of the law to do what he did; nevertheless, he


should not have done it. Because he did it we are entitled to hunt him for it, if only as a warning to his successor of the standard of conduct which the House expects.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The complaints made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary is not here to answer the debate is one upon which I must comment. It is fair to point out that on no occasion since the war, and, as far as I know, long before that, has the Home Secretary personally answered this debate. The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) answered in the time of the previous Administration. Furthermore, my right hon. and gallant Friend was not given very much notice. At 10.15 last night I inquired whether this Amendment had been put down, and it had not then been put down. We did not know until this morning that the matter would be raised.
Three main lines of argument have been raised from time to time in connection with the renewal of the Aliens Order. First of all, there is the line of criticism of particular acts which have been done and rules of administration which have been applied under the order. Secondly, there is very often voiced a demand for the complete abolition of the control of immigration, and, thirdly, there is the case, which was put this evening by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), demanding permanent legislation instead of the present system.
Concerning the first of these arguments—the criticism which has been made, and very properly made, in the course of this debate of the way in which the Home Secretary exercises his powers under the order—I think that I should give the Committee some general facts to show the background against which our administration has been carried on during the past year.
Nine hundred and twenty thousand aliens were admitted to this country during the 12 months ending 30th September last. Of those, only 1,333 were refused leave to land. I cannot give the complete breakdown of the figures of those who were refused leave to land, but I can give the three largest categories.
In 521 cases the applicant did not have the means to support himself. In 115 cases the applicant had inadequate documentation; in other words, he did not have a passport. In 59 cases the applicant came here for a job for which he had not the necessary Ministry of Labour permit.
I am referring, of course, only to aliens. In addition, there was a very large number of visitors and people coming to this country from overseas who were British subjects, and therefore not within this jurisdiction. At the present time, we have rather over 360,000 aliens who are resident in this country in the sense that they are here for three months or longer. Of course, a very large number of these are here permanently. I mention them to the Committee in order to show that we are dealing here with such large numbers that one must expect cases in which administrative mistakes were made.
I am not suggesting for a moment that the cases referred to this evening come within that category. But, from time to time, cases do come to light in which mistakes have been made, and I think that the Committee will agree that, considering the numbers involved, it is astonishing how few complaints there are. Because this is a matter which engenders more indignation than any other, curiously enough, when a mistake is made, a great deal of publicity attaches to it.

Mr. S. Silverman: If it was only in 1,333 cases that permission to land was refused, we can almost forget the other aliens who came, can we not? It is not a very big problem if there are only 1,333 cases in a year which have to be examined.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: All the 920,000 cases have to be examined—the whole lot of them. The point I am making is that difficulties arise in only a tiny proportion of the cases.
A great deal has been said about the question of returnability. The right hon. Member for Grimsby suggested that if returnability were taken away from an alien for some such reason as his having written documents which were offensive to the Government of another country, we would be wrong to refuse to let him stay here in those circumstances. What the right hon. Mem-


ber was saying is that if an alien had his citizenship taken away for political reasons, because what he said amounted to political, religious or other reasons of that kind, we would be wrong to allow him to stay here. The right hon. Member is probably right about that.
If citizenship were taken away from an alien for reasons of a kind which would clearly involve political asylum, political asylum would be granted. But what the right hon. Member seems to forget is that in the case to which he referred—the case of Dr. Cort—citizenship was being taken away because Dr. Cort had failed to comply with a perfectly normal law of the United States with regard to his being called up as a doctor. There was, therefore, no question in that case of his having his citizenship taken away from him for political reasons.

Mr. Younger: I do not want to take the hon. Gentleman into the details of the case, but it is only fair to register that his interpretation of it is not generally accepted on this side. What the hon. Gentleman has said is, at the very best, half the truth.

The Deputy-Chairman: It does not appear to me to be in order on this Amendment to discuss in detail the rights or wrongs of a specific case.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I appreciate, Sir Rhys, that we are in difficulty in that respect, but the case has been made and I think it only fair that I should be entitled to reply to it.
The right hon. Member for South Shields referred to the Eisler case. If he casts his mind back to that case, he will remember that there was no question whatever of Eisler claiming to be allowed to remain in this country; he wished to go to Poland. In other words, he wished to do exactly what Dr. Cort did. In that case, all that the right hon. Gentleman did was precisely what we did in the Cort case. I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman would, at any rate, hesitate——

Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman cannot say that. We made arrangements—I was somewhat severely criticised at the time for making them—to see that Eisler appeared before a court in this country. It was the decision of a court and not of the Home Secretary that allowed Eisler to proceed to Poland.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That was because in that case there were extradition proceedings. The parallel between that case and this one could only have arisen had Eisler claimed to be allowed to remain in this country.

The Deputy-Chairman: Cases might be instanced as an argument for the repeal of a specific Act, but to discuss in detail the merits or demerits of these cases surely is out of order.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: These cases have been cited, and the former Home Secretary the right hon. Member for South Shields cited this case. It is not fair that he should make a point of that kind without my being able to reply to it.

The Deputy-Chairman: It may be that opportunities for dealing with those cases arise when dealing with appropriate orders, but they do not fall within the present Amendment.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I cannot carry that matter any further, but I have indicated that the comparison which the right hon. Member for South Shields sought to draw was totally without foundation, and that had he been confronted with a claim of that kind, I am perfectly certain that he would have refused Eisler permission to stay in this country.
9.30 p.m.
We must insist upon returnability. That is the only possible basis on which we can conduct the whole policy. Our only sanction on which the whole of the policy is based is that of deportation, or rather the power to deport, because, of course, actual deportation is, fortunately, very rare. The right hon. Gentleman asked if I could give some facts about the exercise of this power. In the year up to 30th September, 1954, 124 deportation orders have been made, all of them by the Home Secretary personally. I cannot say how many have been executed, because many orders are made which are never executed since the individuals leave the country. In other cases, there is considerable delay between the making of the order and the time when it can be carried into effect.

Mr. A. Woodburn: When a person is in prison and a deportation order is issued against him, does he usually finish the sentence or is he deported immediately?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If an alien is convicted of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment and if it is possible to deport him, he finishes the sentence and is then deported immediately afterwards. We never make a deportation order merely to hold an alien in gaol; that is to say, although it may be necessary to arrest an alien in order to carry out a deportation order, my right hon. and gallant Friend would never make an order solely in order to hold a man in gaol for an indefinite period. That is not the purpose of the power.

Mr. S. Silverman: Of the 124 persons against whom deportation orders were made during the last 12 months, can the hon. Gentleman say without notice how many are now in prison on a deportation order itself—people whom he has been unable to deport but against whom a deportation order has been made?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I will try to get that information and to let the hon. Member know before we part with the Clause. I cannot answer on the spur of the moment. Of the 124, 76 related to aliens who have been here for less than four years; in other words, aliens who are here on a temporary basis.
I should tell the Committee that one of these cases relates to a man who has been here since before 1939. I think that the facts of that exceptional case are worth mentioning to show the way in which the order is worked. The individual concerned was an Italian who had been here since childhood, and therefore one might suppose that this was a peculiarly harsh exercise of the power.
In June, 1940, he openly declared that he would rather serve in the Italian Army than in the British Army. He was interned. It was necessary to keep him in internment until May, 1945, on account of his strongly expressed anti-British views. It was then decided that he would not be repatriated because of the general circumstances of the conclusion of the war and the fact that he had lived here for a long time. He then took to a life of crime and was twice given specific warnings that if he so continued he would be deported. It was only after that that it was finally decided to deport him. That shows that even the type of case which, at first glance, might look as if deportation were a harsh measure

may be one where an order must properly be made.
The question which I would put to those who argue in the way the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has argued, that we should deal with the matter by statute, is, "Do you really want hard-and-fast statutory rules in this connection?" Does the hon. Member really want it laid down that a man who commits one serious crime, two serious crimes, three serious crimes, or whatever number one wishes, shall be deported? That is what he argued.

Mr. Silverman: What I argued was that if we are to give these powers to the Home Secretary, the House of Commons should define them. What I further argued is that even in the sort of case which the hon. Gentleman has described, and especially in that kind of case, it is very much better that the man should have the right to be heard than that we should be left dependent upon the Home Secretary's perfectly honourable but quite ex-parte judgment.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If the man is to be heard by the court, then the court must have the conditions in which he is to be deported laid down precisely, and we should then do away altogether with the discretion which is now vested in the Home Secretary. A man who is the subject of a deportation order has a perfectly good right to be heard at the moment, and, indeed, every hard case is heard. All he need do is to bring the matter to the attention of a Member of Parliament, and it can then be raised in the House. That seems to be a far more appropriate way of dealing with the matter.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman is surely mistaken in supposing that the only choice before us is discretion in the Home Secretary or a completely rigid code. Surely there are many cases in which matters are referred to a court and the court is left with a discretion. I should prefer a judicial discretion to a political one.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If the hon. Member really means that all he wants to do is to put it out of his own power to take up the cudgels in a case which is thought to be hard, I do not think he will find many hon. Members who will agree with him. There are some cases where


deportation would obviously appear to be abominable, and there are other cases where deportation appears to be essential. In fact, all these cases have difficult, complicated features. There may be security reasons; there may be compassionate considerations, if for instance, the man has a wife and children in this country, and there are other considerations. It really is not possible to deal with these matters except on the basis of the widest possible discretion.
Deportation is not a punishment, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne appears to think. It is an administrative act——

Mr. Silverman: It is execution.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: —and it is on that basis that the discretion should be exercised.
A good deal has been said on the question of political asylum. I must repeat what has been said many times before. Political asylum is the right of the State and not the right of the individual concerned. I want to quote what I said in the last debate on this subject. The traditional test applied to applications for political asylum is that the applicant's life or liberty would be in danger on account of race, religion, nationality or political opinion if asylum were refused. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne suggested in his speech that the Home Office tended to regard that definition as if it was limited to the applicant's life, and he referred to a letter which he said had been written from the Home Office to show that that was the case. In the debate which we had on 30th July on the Cort case, I said:
Dr. Cort then supplied the Press with a statement saying that the Home Secretary had rejected his claim because the rule under which political asylum can be granted was limited to danger to life. That was the next action that was taken. Of course, if indeed my right hon. and learned Friend had ever said that that was the rule, then I quite agree that all the criticisms that have been levelled against him would be valid, but the plain truth is that that statement by Dr. Cort was completely and absolutely without any foundation whatsoever. That was the first time, so far as I know, that this matter reached public ears."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 964.]
I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Bristol——

The Deputy-Chairman: I think we are back on the details of this case.

Mr. William Keenan: On a point of order. This matter has been ventilated, and, as the details of this particular case have been debated, I think we should get a reply from the Under-Secretary, whether he likes it or not.

The Deputy-Chairman: It might be desirable to have a reply, but this is not the occasion for such a reply, nor is it the occasion for a detailed discussion of the case.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: This point was made at some length, and, indeed, the hon. Member really virtually accused me——

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot allow that. I think I have made it quite clear that the case may be referred to as an illustration whether the restriction should be repealed or not, but that does not make it in order to discuss the detailed merits of a particular case.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Further to that point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have as much right to interfere in this debate as any other hon. Gentleman. I am a Member of this House, and I want to draw attention to a point connected with the matter under discussion. Is it not correct, when dealing with a purely technical legal matter of this kind, to illustrate such a matter with definite and concrete historical cases?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is the case; it is in order to use a particular case as an illustration, but that is a very different thing from going into the merits or demerits of the case and discussing it in detail.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I cannot pursue that matter, though I think I could answer all the points that have been made. I think I can at least go as far as to say that the distortion of that case by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne really cannot be allowed to go uncontradicted.

Mr. Silverman: I apologise for interrupting again, but I think the word "distortion" is a rather harsh word to use in connection with what I said. I said in my speech that the Home Secretary had


expressly repudiated any such opinion, and I said that to the House, and I made it perfectly clear that I know perfectly will that the Home Secretary never held any such view. What I did say——

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now going into the details of the case.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I interrupt? I think it is fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that the Under-Secretary should withdraw the word he did use. I quite realise that he cannot now discuss the merits of this case, and, that being so, and as previously both sides of that case had been put, no harm would be done if the hon. Gentleman left the discussion where it is. Those who agree with him already know the case that he will deploy, and, in my submission, it would be unfair for what he said to stand on the record.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have nothing to say to that. I have given my Ruling.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The facts in that case certainly did not amount to anything sufficient to justify a claim to political asylum, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields speaks of a reign of terror in America, I can only suppose that he has been paying a great deal of attention to his hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I used those words before my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) had spoken. They expressed views which, as a teacher in this free country, I hold very sincerely. I lose no opportunity of expressing my sympathy with my colleagues in America in the unfortunate circumstances in which they are now placed.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am content to leave that matter where it stands. I hesitate to go into any of the other individual cases which have been mentioned. I would like to do so, but I think I should offend against your Ruling, Sir Rhys.
With regard to the abolition of control over immigration I recognise that there are excellent a priori arguments that can

be put forward for it. Unfortunately there are insuperable practical objections. I think they are recognised in all parts of the House, and certainly by the right hon. Member for South Shields who speaks for the Opposition in this matter. I assume that the Committee as a whole is with me in saying that we must, in present circumstances, retain control of immigration.
The question then is whether the control should be exercised through the Parliamentary machinery which we have dealt with this evening or by means of permanent legislation. Should there be a statute embodying the Aliens Order, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested? I think he would agree with me that that Order is almost altogether administrative machinery of the kind found in a statutory instrument and not in a statute. What he and hon. Members in various parts of the Committee want is a statute setting out substantive rules. That is what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne wants. It has been asked for in various parts of the Committee.
I must tell the Committee that the conditions for the admission of foreigners into this country are almost impossible to define. I believe that both the right hon. Gentlemen who spoke and who have practical knowledge of that difficulty will agree that we could not set out effectively in a statute the considerations which ought to be taken into account when admitting aliens into this country, and that we must deal with the matter in the way it has been dealt with in the past, not only by an order but by building up a kind of case law and trying to keep to it. If Questions are put down on individual cases or general policy, they are always answered fully. Also, the matter is ventilated every year, as it is this evening, by a debate on this Bill. That is a more satisfactory way of dealing with the matter.
There must be a discretion. What tribunal could possibly say that X's employment is needed in the national interest? It is a consideration which could be advanced. This must be a question of policy, to be decided by a Minister. Would hon. Members prefer that questions of hardship in individual cases should be removed from the purview of the House of Commons and put before some kind of tribunal? It seems to me


that the best way to deal with those matters is the present way, so that hard cases can be brought up and ventilated. here.
Of course, the way in which I have just put this matter greatly over-simplifies the problem, because there are, of course, many other considerations than those I have mentioned. Besides, if a statute were passed now it would have to give sufficient powers for dealing with the kind of base we have been discussing, or, alternatively, impose itself adequate restrictions to deal with them.
I recognise that the powers of the Home Secretary and the restrictions which he has to impose are very onerous indeed. That is due to the circumstances of the world in which we live, but I think it would be quite wrong to freeze our powers and our restrictions in the present state of affairs, because that is what we should have to do if we tried to deal with the matter by statute now. If a statute were adequate to deal with the present position, it might be much more than adequate to deal with it in a few years' time.
I can assure the Committee that every aspect of this question is constantly under review, and when I say that I mean every aspect, both in general policy and in particular cases. Certainly no one would be more thankful than my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, or, if I may say so, the Joint Under-Secretary, to be able to place a part at least of this matter on a more stable basis, but I believe that at the present time it is essential to continue as we have been doing for so many years past.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 13 to 15.
If this Amendment were accepted, it would destroy the 30 miles-an-hour speed limit. That, no doubt, would meet with the approval of a number of motorists, but I am not at all sure that it would meet with the approval of pedestrians. However, as you may have guessed, Sir Rhys, it is not really my intention to do that. I do not want to get rid of the 30 miles-an-hour speed limit, but only to get it put on a permanent basis.
The submission I wish to make to the Committee tonight is that it is high time—indeed, long past time—that the Government should take that step. The 30 miles-an-hour speed limit dates from the 1934 Act.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Why did not the hon. Gentleman's own Government do it during the six years of Socialism?

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he cares to stay, will hear the reply very quickly. This dates from the 1934 Road Traffic Act.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The 1934 Act?

Mr. Callaghan: If the noble Lord cares to refer to the Bill, he will see that we are discussing the context of Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934.
When the Coalition Government was in existence—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will watch my history—it set up a committee to review road safety in general, including, of course, the operation of the 1934 Act. There was an interim report in 1944, a final report in 1947, and, following on that final report, which dealt with a large number of issues ranging from driving while under the influence of drink to guard rails at pedestrian crossings, the Government of which I happened to be a very junior Member proceeded to consult the interests concerned and to pave the way for legislation. When, in 1951, I left the Ministry of Transport legislation was well on the way. I am told that by the time the Labour Government left office in 1951 a Bill was about to be put into draft form.
Our hopes were encouraged in 1952, when the hon. Baronet the Member for Bristol, North-West (Sir G. Braithwaite), who was then the Parliamentary Secretary, came to the House for the debate on this matter. I raised the same question then as I am raising tonight. I was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who so incited the Parliamentary Secretary that he gave utterance to an expression that I have no doubt the Ministry has long since regretted.
In response to the challenge of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby as to why, five years after the Report had been


prepared, the House was still not in possession of the proposed legislation, he said:
But I add immediately that my right hon. Friend is not definitely wedded to that idea, and that we hope before too long—I cannot give a date—to introduce to the House a comprehensive Road Traffic Bill, in which we intend, among other things—there are, as hon. Members will realise, a number of matters awaiting attention: rear lighting, and so on—to seek authority to make the power to impose the speed limit permanent.
That was two years ago. I think I am entitled to say that the words
… we hope before too long … to introduce … a Bill …
really were an indication to us that we could expect it fairly shortly. Certainly, the hon. Baronet, who had then been rendered wholly punch drunk, but was still on his feet and weaving, came back with a straight left to the jaw when I interrupted to say that the Government could claim no special virtue in that. He replied:
The virtue of action as against inaction; that is all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 1374 and 1381.]
These were the brave words of 1952. But where is the Bill? There has not been much action so far. We are still waiting.
This matter has been raised since then. I am not sure whether the present Parliamentary Secretary has had Questions on the subject, but, certainly, his predecessor had, and so had the Minister. On 3rd February, 1954, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) asked the Minister when it was
… propose to present legislation to Parliament to improve measures of road safety as announced in the Speech from the Throne.
In the Gracious Speech from the Throne in 1953—that is, a year ago—we were promised a Measure dealing with road safety. We have not had it. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) is taking as much interest in this as he did in his jibe at the beginning, because I think that he might himself be pressing his own Government for a Measure of this sort.

Captain Duncan: It is in action already. The hon. Gentleman is talking of improvements in road safety. This

30-mile speed limit all over the country has been decided by Parliament.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not following the argument. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is not capable."] No, I shall not say that he is not capable, but a comprehensive Bill dealing with this was promised to be introduced. We were promised it in a speech by the Parliamentary Secretary in 1952, we were promised it in the Queen's Speech of 1953—and still it has not appeared. I should like to ask the Government why it has not appeared and when we are to get it. That seems to be a perfectly legitimate request. After all, it is not often that legislation promised in the Queen's Speech just disappears without a word. The Gracious Speech is supposed to lay down the Government's legislative programme for the remainder of the year.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: There is teachers' superannuation.

Mr. Callaghan: My right hon. Friend reminds me that, of course, the Teachers' Superannuation Bill has not got very far. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Dentists Bill."] It will be seen how I am being led astray, but these are purely illustrations of the muddle into which the Government get themselves in their legislative programme. I would not dream of spending any more time on them because I do not want to rub the Government's nose in the dirt. Goodness knows, it is dirty enough without any rubbing. All I would say to the Parliamentary Secretary on this aspect of the matter is that he must not give us the reply that the Minister gave on 3rd February, when he said, in reply to a Question by me:
I have made it plain in earlier answers in the House that a good Bill involves a great deal of preliminary consultation,"—
he did not remember that on the Transport Bill—
so that some of the problems which might otherwise occupy public attention after the Bill is presented can be thrashed out first."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1954; Vol. 523, c. 336.]
10.0 p.m.
Both Governments have had seven years in which to do something. This Government found a Bill practically in draft. Is it not the case that there is a Road Traffic Safety Bill in draft today, in the form of Clauses, which could have been presented to the House in the last


12 months, but is lying in a dusty pigeon hole, mouldering?
The Minister goes to the Road Safety Congress and makes brave and bold speeches. I am in favour of brave and bold speeches from the Government. We hear enough muttering from them, but cannot we have some action as well? Instead of having just brave and bold speeches at the Congress, why not put some teeth into the speeches?
This is a serious matter. I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that we are not disposed to allow it to pass lightly or easily. He knows, because he is Chairman of the Road Safety Committee, that if there is one problem which is touching the conscience of people today it is this question of accidents on the roads. Practically every figure in public life has expressed concern at the growing toll of accidents on the roads because of the increasing number of vehicles and the need for an overhaul of existing legislation.
I say this to the Parliamentary Secretary in his capacity as Chairman of the Road Safety Committee. I regard it as his duty to badger the Leader of the House and the Government to get a nonparty and a non-controversial Bill of this sort introduced as soon as possible. If he had showed a little more action and made fewer speeches, we should have had this Bill a long time since. I would cheerfully have given up some of the legislation that we have had in the last few years in exchange for it.
A committee considered and reported on the matter. A committee examined all the implications that would be necessary to revise the existing Act. Since that time, the Minister has had years in which to consult the various interests concerned. I know that conferences have taken place, for two reasons: first of all, I was on the end that started the consultations, and later, I have been on the receiving end, and I know some of the consultations that the Minister has had. He has had all the consultations he can possibly want. The Bill is ready, but it has not been introduced.
I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that there is a very strong case for bringing in this Bill at the earliest possible moment if he means the public to take seriously the suggestion that the Government are in earnest about preventing road

accidents. The Parliamentary Secretary knows, as I know, that in this legislation there are many provisions dealing with drunkenness and a great many other things. [Interruption.] Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman either stop muttering or stand up and say what he wants to say?

Captain Duncan: What has this got to do with the 30 miles-an-hour speed limit? All we are concerned with on the Amendment is the continuation of Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, which deals with the 30 miles-an-hour speed limit only. It has nothing to do with drunkenness.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sure that if I were out of order, the Chair would pull me up. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been at these debates in the last few years, as some of us have been, he would know that the discussion has ranged over this problem. If the Parliamentary Secretary states in reply to a debate, that legislation is coming shortly, and goes on to detail some of the points with which the legislation deals in previous debates in previous years, there is nothing out of order in referring to them again on this occasion. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he feels his Government have a guilty conscience. So do I and I do not wonder that he is trying to protect his Front Bench.
I have no desire to detain the Committee except to say that I hope the Parliamentay Secretary will do his duty. Get this Bill off the stocks. Get it in front of the House. Plenty of hon. Members will give up their time to get it through. There will be no fractious comment. We want to see an end to the terrible road accidents. The Ministry of Transport has a bad legislative record and so has the Minister's predecessor. It is time we had this Bill.

The Chairman: The Question is——

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We had hoped to have a reply from the Minister. I was under the impression that he was about to rise, Sir Charles.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) was on his feet when you were about to put the Question, Sir Charles.

The Chairman: I think I was a little too quick.

Mr. Keenan: I do not want unduly to prolong the proceedings, but I think something should be given to us on this particular question. I have raised the subject of road safety in the last 12 months on two Adjournments, once with the Home Office and once with the Ministry of Transport. The reply I got about a fortnight, or three weeks, ago was such that it was sufficient to demand a new road traffic Act.
Our present legislation is inadequate and merely to continue as is suggested here is absolutely preposterous. One hon. Member suggested we should be limited to the 30 miles-an-hour limit. I prefer to be limited rather than argue for something to be done which is different from the expressed intention.
All we are asked to do is simply to continue as we are, with no promise that anything will be done in the near future. What is the value of continuing with the 30 miles-an-hour limit when neither the Home Office nor the Ministry of Transport is able to enforce it? Everybody knows perfectly well that the majority of motorists and motor-cyclists are exceeding the 30 miles-an-hour limit in almost 50 per cent. of the cases. There is hardly a motor cyclist on the road who does not exceed the speed limit, yet there is no promise of any intention to do anything about it.
I had a Question on the Order Paper today, but I did not have the opportunity of questioning the Minister because it was not reached. It was to ask why there was a limitation on crossings and what was being done about those alleged to be travelling at 30 miles an hour but often travelling at 40 or 50 miles an hour. The enormous toll of murders on the road is sufficient justification for demanding from the Government a Bill that has been on the stocks for so long. Such a Bill would give the House an opportunity of improving road safety measures and of trying to get changes made by law which would cut down the accident rate. If it is intended to continue with the present Road Act next year, what is the good of road safety programmes such as we have in Liverpool at present? What good are they if we do nothing effective to follow them up?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): The hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) addressed his speech to the real question of road safety. I cannot follow him in all he has said, because the only effect the Amendment would have would be to bring to an end on 31st December all the restrictions of 30 miles per hour. We are convinced that it is extremely important for road safety that this limitation should continue.

Mr. Callaghan: No one is arguing otherwise.

Mr. Molson: The hon. Member says that no one is arguing, but that is the effect of the Amendment, and I am under an obligation to give some reasons why I must advise the Committee to reject it. This may be one of those cases where the Opposition choose to make irrelevant speeches upon their Amendments, but that is no reason why I should not justify the action of the Government in putting this provision into the Schedule of the Bill.
A Select Committee of another place went into the question of road safety and came to the conclusion that the principle of a speed limit must be retained. But it is not in a Select Committee of another place that we find the classical pronouncement upon this matter. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was Chairman of the Road Safety Committee at the time when it was asked by the right hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) to report on various aspects of road safety. I congratulate him upon the excellent piece of work produced by the Committee under his chairmanship, but when he moves tonight that we should bring all 30 miles an hour speed limits to an end on 31st December, I feel bound to read to him the general principles that he laid down as Chairman of the Committee. He said:
Safety on the road is the major consideration and a speed limit is a safety measure which should be imposed wherever justified and appropriate.
Why he should be so impatient when I am quoting with appreciation and agreement a report of which he was certainly the main signatory, I cannot imagine.

Mr. Callaghan: I said at the outset that as far as I knew nobody wanted to get rid of the 30-miles-an-hour speed limit. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary must have heard what I said. He should know that that is not the main substance of the argument. What we are really interested in is the fact that the promise made in this debate two years ago has not been carried out, and we shall be much obliged if he will come to the point as soon as he can.

Mr. Molson: I hope to deal with the points made by the hon. Gentleman, but I must point out that there is very little connection between the Amendment he moved and the speech he made. Later, fortunately, there was an intervention by the hon. Member for Kirkdale, who is fully aware of the gravity of the Amendment.

Mr. Callaghan: This is not the Oxford Union; it is the House of Commons.

Mr. Molson: The hon. Member for Kirkdale has always emphasised the importance of the 30 miles-an-hour speed limit, and has been pressing for its introduction in places where it does not exist at present. He is certainly not in agreement with the hon. Member for Cardiff. South-East on this point.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: On a point of order. There are many other questions to be discussed tonight, and although probably it is quite justifiable for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to go on as he is and comment on things that are not under discussion in order to twist my hon. Friend's tail, I take it that you, Sir Charles, are desirous that the business should be discussed in a speedy manner so that other hon. Members will be able to discuss other matters before the early hours of the morning, and that, therefore, the hon. Gentleman should not waste the time of the Committee.

The Chairman: The Parliamentary Secretary is quite in order. Naturally, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, I am always interested in speedy business.

Mr. Molson: I find myself in some difficulty in this matter. We have introduced a Bill in order to continue after the 31st December this year, for a further

12 months, a Measure that all Governments, the previous Government as well as this, have continued from year to year.
Even if new legislation had been introduced just recently, or even if it were introduced now, it could hardly be on the Statute Book before 31st December, and it is, therefore, essential that this Bill should continue for a further year the valuable provisions of Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934. Because the hon. Gentleman opposite chooses to hang upon a peg of this kind a criticism of the Government, that is really no reason why at the beginning of my speech I should not seek to persuade the Committee that it is extremely valuable to maintain this 30 miles an hour speed limit, and it is obviously necessary that this Amendment should be rejected by the Committee if we are to have it in operation after the beginning of next year.
As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East objected to my reading paragraph 5 of his valuable Report, I will not proceed to do so any further. The general gist of that paragraph is to emphasise how valuable it is to have the 30 miles an hour speed limit in suitable places. As the hon. Member for Kirkdale tonight, as on previous occasions, has urged upon us the desirability of extending the 30 miles an hour speed limit elsewhere, I would suggest to him that he should read paragraph 7 of the same Report. He will see that in this admirable Report of his hon. Friend it is emphasised that while the 30 miles an hour speed limit is valuable in some places, and, therefore, must be retained by this Bill, it does not follow from
that that a general and indiscriminate extension of it all over the country would be equally desirable.
We can point to very considerable improvement in the road accident records since the 30 miles an hour speed limit was originally introduced. In 1934 the total number of accidents was 239,000, and in 1953 it was only 226,000, in spite of an increase in the number of motor vehicles from about 2½ million to over 5¼ million. In the face of an improvement of that kind, it is obvious that we could not accept the Amendment.

Mr. Keenan: A number of factors are involved here. We have trained some of the children better than they were trained


in those days. People are less inclined to cross the road now, because they are afraid of being knocked down. They dodge crossing the road. That is one reason fewer are killed.

Mr. Molson: A number of improvements in the law were effected in 1934, and one of the most radical changes was the introduction of the 30 miles-per-hour speed limit.
For those reasons, I feel sure the House will agree that, after the improvement which has taken place, we could not lightheartedly accept the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East made a protest that I began my speech by addressing myself to the Amendment, and I promised him that I should not fail to answer some of the points he had made, especially as they amounted to a criticism of the Government. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Sir G. Braithwaite), who was my predecessor, indicated two years ago that the Minister of Transport hoped at some time to introduce a Road Traffic Bill. My hon. and gallant Friend was careful, however, to point out that it was not possible for him to mention a date.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said:
… we hope before too long—I cannot give a date—to introduce to the House a comprehensive road traffic Bill,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December. 1952; Vol. 508, c. 1374.]
How long is too long?

Mr. Molson: The answer is that it is not long enough yet. My hon. and gallant Friend was careful in what he said on that occasion; he said, "I cannot give a date." The same applies generally to me at present. I can, however, make it plain that it is not the Government's intention to introduce a Road Traffic Bill during the remainder of the present Session.
There was no promise in the Queen's Speech that legislation would be introduced during the present Session. I have furnished myself with the words, which read:
My Ministers are attentively examining the Road Traffic Acts with a view to introducing further legislation to improve road safety and promote the orderly use of the roads."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1953; Vol. 520, c. 6.]

Mr. George Porter: But the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Queen's Speech contained a reference to the Government's intention in that sentence.

Mr. Molson: It was for that reason that the Gracious Speech carefully said:
My Ministers are attentively examining the Road Traffic Acts …
Having heard my definite statement on behalf of the Government that it is not our intention to introduce a Bill dealing with road safety during the remainder of the present Session, I am sure that hon. Members opposite will realise that it would be quite improper for me in any way to anticipate what might appear in the Queen's Speech opening the next Session of Parliament.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think the whole Committee will agree that we have rarely listened to a speech which contained so little in it, and which, in fact, contained no reply whatever to the very cogent arguments put from this side of the Committee. If it were not that we on this side are just as keen as anyone else to have this provision retained until further legislation comes along, I would invite my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee to vote against it.
Earlier, Sir Charles, I asked whether you would permit the hon. Gentleman to reply to the debate. He has made no reply; he has simply wasted our time, and I am sorry that I put that point to you.
Amendment negatived.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 41 to 45.

Mr. James Carmichael: On a point of order, Sir Charles. As we are dealing with all the Acts in this Schedule, I want to be assured that after the Amendments have been dealt with we shall be allowed to discuss any of the Acts that have not so far been debated.

The Chairman (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Certainly. I have to put the Question that, "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. Blenkinsop: It has been customary for a considerable number of years to


take this opportunity of discussing the Act to which I am referring in my Amendment, that is to say, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, and its continuation.
In moving that these lines be left out, I am following precedent in a way which I hope the Minister will appreciate. I am doing so for the reason that it is desirable that we should have some account of the operation of this Act before agreeing to its continuation, and that we should consider before agreeing to its continuation whether or not it is desirable that this Act should be on a more formal basis and be given indefinite statutory effect.
I hope that it will be recognised that, since this matter was last discussed a year ago, there have been some important changes which affect quite considerably the operation of the Act. I am referring, of course, to the changes brought about by the introduction of fresh legislation under the Housing Repairs and Rents Act which was passed through the House this Session. In that Act references are made to the rent tribunals under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, and our experience of the last few months suggests that a considerable number of tenants are, in fact, taking advantage of the opportunity of referring cases to the rent tribunals. That means that there is bound to be a considerable increase in the amount of work which these tribunals have to carry out.
The first question I put to the Minister is whether he is satisfied that the reduced number of rent tribunals now in operation is sufficient to do the work efficiently and give proper opportunity to tenants to make their claims before them. As the Minister knows, we originally had 81 or more rent tribunals in operation in England and Wales. Over the period of time since the present Government came into power, we have had a reduction in the number of the rent tribunals, and I think that the figure quoted today in the Financial Memorandum of this Bill is 61 rent tribunals; that is to say, there has been a reduction of some 20 tribunals. That has been carried out with a great deal of protest from this side. Many of my hon. Friends have felt that the closing down of tribunals meant that tenants would not have the opportunity of raising

their cases, as they had before. We should re-examine the position now, in view of the new category of case which is bound to come before the tribunals. Does the information which the Minister has about the use of the tribunals and the need for them justify an increase in their number?
Now that these rent tribunals have been enshrined in other legislation, is it not time to consider whether they should not be put upon a more permanent basis? In 1946, we thought of them as required for a temporary period while the demand for houses was in its most acute state. Now they are to be used for other legislation, and it is worth while considering whether the Act included in this Schedule should not be made permanent. We all recognise the value of the work done by the tribunals and how many families are protected today against gross malpractice by the existence of the tribunals. Many tenants have been able to secure rent reductions. Many landlords would be charging higher rents for furnished tenancies if it were not for the tribunals. We are anxious not only that the Government should maintain the existing number of tribunals but should give full consideration to increasing the number.
In doing so, the Government should consider not merely the number of applications made to the tribunals but the actual cases that come forward for consideration. The tribunals have given valuable advice to tenants and landlords about cases which have not proceeded to full examination. That advice may help the parties to reach an amicable solution. We urge the Minister to give us some satisfaction that he will do his best to ensure, with cases already arising under the new Act of landlords trying to increase their charges for services of all kinds, that everyone in the country realises his rights and powers and the willingness of rent tribunals to hear cases. We hope he will satisfy us that the Government recognise the importance of this matter and will consider even increasing the number of tribunals, particularly in places where tribunals were closed down.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): I appreciate that the main purpose of the hon. Mem-


ber for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) in moving this Amendment is to obtain up-to-date information on the activities and the prospects of the rent tribunals. I welcome this chance to say a word on these prospects. First, may I give this general assurance in answer to the hon. Gentleman's speech? They will remain as long as they have got a task to fulfil, and it is quite clear that, although their work has been considerably reduced from the early days, they still have a considerable amount to do.
With regard to reduction by amalgamation, of which the hon. Gentleman spoke, as the work of the tribunals is reduced, as in certain areas it has been reduced, it is the policy—and this was discussed last year—to reduce their number by amalgamation, and I think that is reasonable on grounds of economy. In respect of the later legislation, that situation is being kept under very close watch.
The assurance was given last year that there would be no reduction in the service to meet the public needs, and I can repeat that assurance now; a close watch will be kept on the numbers and, if necessary, adjustments can be made in both directions.
The Committee may like some figures indicating the current activity of the tribunals. In the peak year of their activity which ended in October, 1950, the tribunals decided 18,351 cases. There were, as the hon. Gentleman has said, 80 tribunals in existence in England and Wales. In the year ending 31st March, 1954, they decided 8,568 cases. The tribunals had then been reduced to 61. There have been no amalgamations since January of this year.
As the hon. Gentleman may have calculated for himself, whereas the cases have been reduced to 50 per cent. of what they were in the peak period, the tribunals are still at 75 per cent. of their strength. We have felt that they should be able at that level to absorb the new work which the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954, has brought to them without addition, but if additions are needed they will be provided.
I should add that all the indications are that further amalgamation will be possible but, as an indication of the work

which the tribunals are already doing under this Act, I would say that they have had 100 applications under Sections 24 and 40 of the Act, most of which were from London and Manchester. I think that the incidence of cases under this Act will probably be geographically uneven; that is to say, they will arise obviously more in London and one or two other places than elsewhere.
To indicate that we are keeping a close watch on the needs of these tribunals in their fresh task, I can say that they are being asked to report progress once a month rather than once every three months, and they have been asked when under any pressure to report to the Ministry.
I should add that an alternative means has been found of economising in the use of these tribunals where they are not required full-time, and that is to keep certain tribunals working part-time—that is to say, three days a week. These were all done with the agreement of the tribunals concerned. I think I would be right in saying that not more than 10 of the tribunals are now affected by that reduction.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of advice which may be given. I think it is generally accepted that the staff of tribunals give advice to all, and on every occasion that they can, but their advice is limited by the consideration that the tribune may sooner or later have to adjudicate on a point on which advice is sought. I think it will be agreed that we cannot maintain the tribunals for advice only. The local authorities are now empowered to give a certain amount of advice on the new Act, and there are other agencies which can supply the advice. To keep the tribunals in operation solely for that purpose would not be proper.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of their future in terms of their permanence. I cannot add to what has already been said, that this is a matter to be reviewed when there is a comprehensive review of the rent control situation, which there has not been yet, and there can be no change in their permanence until such a review is undertaken. I can, however, give this assurance. These tribunals will be kept equal to the work which they have to do, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with that assurance.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. What he has said and the way in which he has said it has been in marked contrast to the attitude of his predecessor at that Box. The hon. Gentleman knows that, in spite of this Amendment, we do not want to let these tribunals disappear, but under the rules of the House the only way in which we can debate a matter of this kind is to put down an Amendment of this sort. I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for realising that, and for not wasting any time in reply by pretending that we wanted to do something other than what we wanted to do.
I understand that there are no arrears of cases, and those who apply to these rent tribunals are coming forward and are now being dealt with with reasonable despatch. If that is so, I do not think we have any criticism to offer to the hon. Gentleman, particularly as he has indicated to us that these tribunals will be kept in being as long as they are necessary.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. Carmichael: I should like to raise a question that I raised last week concerning the Education (Exemptions) (Scotland) Act, 1947. It deals exclusively with potato harvesting. From the beginning, I have objected to children going potato harvesting.
The important point that I want to stress tonight is that it is the children with the limited education who, in the main, go potato harvesting. The most important function that the education authority can fulfil in Scotland is to develop the faculties of children at the time when they are going out into the world.
I should like to be told the reduction in the potato-growing acreage during the last two years. That may be responsible for much of the decrease in the number of children so employed, but an examination of the record which was given last week shows that this year, from the junior secondary schools in Glasgow alone—I shall not discuss any other part of the country, because that would be unfair to other hon. Members from Scotland—there were 1,544 children engaged on

the work. That means that almost 94 per cent. of the children from the junior secondary schools of Glasgow went potato harvesting, and about 6 per cent. went from the senior secondary schools. None went from the fee-paying schools.
10.45 p.m.
I make no protest about the parents who have children at the fee-paying schools not allowing them to go potato harvesting, but from that a lesson can be drawn. The people who send their children to the fee-paying schools want to give them the very best education they can get. The secondary schools are in many cases on a par with the fee-paying schools, but, as I said more than a year ago, the junior secondary schools are the Cinderella of Scottish education. Children regarded by some people as not competent to get to better schools go to that type of school, and they are not allowed to go potato picking until they are more than 13 years of age. Yet this is the most important period of their school education because they have to leave the school at 15, and, if I am any judge, the older the pupil gets the more attention should be paid to the education it gets within the school.
One of the most serious aspects is that children in Glasgow return to school after the summer recess at the end of August. They go into a new class and the teacher prepares them for work for the new session. These junior secondary schools are overcrowded, and by the time the teacher has shepherded them into something like order to begin the new curriculum, they are taken away at the beginning of October to start potato harvesting. The Under-Secretary might say that they are not taken away but volunteer. That is a very poor argument. There are some people in this country who would not let their children go to school. This House, by every piece of legislation, compels the community to do things which it is doubtful they would do if they were allowed to act voluntarily.
The Government have no right to give parents permission to allow their children to go potato harvesting. They do not benefit physically. My predecessor, Mr. James Maxton, once said that Scotland is a small country, and the only way in which a small country of five million people can take its place in the world


is by the advancement of knowledge and the improvement of education. Therefore, I submit that the time has arrived when some action should be taken to stop children harvesting potatoes.
During Question time last week one hon. Gentleman who had been to Russia said that he had seen harvesting of potatoes done by machinery. No children were involved. That was behind the Iron Curtain, and I think that we as a democracy should be more advanced than the people behind the Iron Curtain. I know of a farmer in Scotland who will not employ children for this task because he has machinery to do it, and I could give the name of this person to the Under-Secretary after the debate.
I suggest that in Scotland we have able-bodied men who could do this work, and I am satisfied that sufficient has been paid in subsidies to farmers. I have never known a rich farmer in my life. All farmers are very poor. They generally come to the markets in Rolls Royces. Cadillacs or Bentleys. I am quite satisfied that if the farmers were to pay proper rates to adults we could find sufficient men for the job. The great proportion of the children from Glasgow who go to the potato harvesting come from the east end of Glasgow, and they could easily be replaced by unemployed people.
I welcome the news that the numbers are being gradually reduced, and I hope that in due course, by some positive Measure, the Government will repeal the Act. The Under-Secretary cannot argue that it was a Labour Government which introduced the Act. I have it here, and it is quite plain that it was intended to expire in 1948. I do not care who abolishes it; I shall give credit to whichever Government does so. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some evidence that steps are being taken in this direction.
If children must be employed in this work, let it be apportioned between those who will continue at school after the poorer children—the majority of whom will be economically and socially handicapped all their lives—have left at 15 years of age.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I wish to speak for a few

minutes on the next Act mentioned in the Schedule.

Mr. Carmichael: No, no; we are still on this one.

Mr. Woodburn: On a point of order. Would it not be desirable to finish with one Act at a time, Sir Rhys.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): We are dealing with the Schedule. The right hon. Member is not raising a point of order. I cannot tell what an hon. Member is going to talk about when I call him.

Mr. Carmichael: I should like to put it to you, Sir Rhys, that if the Minister rises to reply to one item and then sits down and rises to reply to another item, the whole issue will be confused. Surely one issue should be finished at a time, after which we can proceed to the next?

The Deputy-Chairman: The Question is, "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill." I cannot say beforehand what a Member is going to say.

Mrs. Mann: I hope that I shall not confuse the issue if I refer to the next Act on the Schedule, which is the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act. It seems that the last time we discussed this matter in the House a great storm blew up, and we finished with a Motion of censure upon the Chair. In case you, Sir Rhys, might feel apprehensive at that fact, I would remind the Committee that the Motion of censure was orchestrated and set to music and became a paean of praise in the end.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not know what that has to do with the continuation of the Act in question.

Mrs. Mann: It arises out of the Bill, and from the fact that we had tabled an Amendment to extend the Act for five years. Tonight I want to submit evidence to prove the necessity of giving better security to shopkeepers by means of the Act. We say now, as we said then, that the Act, being only on a yearly basis, gives the shopkeeper very little security. I have here an outstanding case of this insecurity.
I have a sheriff's interlocutory, and the sheriff finds that the applicant had been, in this particular case, an occupant of premises for 35 years. I do not want to


weary the Committee with all the details, but, in part, the sheriff says that this business has been the applicant's sole means of livelihood; and then adds that, in fact and in law, if he had to remove from the premises now he would suffer very serious hardship, whereas it is not proved that the respondent would suffer any very great hardship at all by not getting possession of the applicant's premises.
Then the sheriff says that he finds that greater hardship would be caused for the applicant if a renewal of the tenancy was refused than if the application was granted. This is not giving the tenant that security which we all desire for shop tenants when they are faced with the threat of "buy or quit." But the real sting of this interlocutory is in the tail, because the sheriff states that whereas the applicant, if he is ejected from his shop would suffer very grievous hardship in the loss of his livelihood, he—the sheriff—because of the sacrifice of shop and fittings and equipment, felt compelled to grant the applicant one more renewal. This is the third time that that has been done, and each time this shopkeeper has to find a lawyer, and each time he gets this threat.
Here is the end of what the sheriff states:
I warn him that a fourth application for renewal may not meet with the same success as on this occasion.
That is signed, "Sam Macdonald."
All I say is that I do not know why this Sam should pick up his musket and fire through the security of an Act which is intended to protect the shopkeeper. Why, if the circumstances are exactly the same next year, should he have cause to say that because that will be the fourth time the applicant may not meet with success?

The Deputy-Chairman: If I understand aright, the hon. Lady is now criticising the decision of a court of law.

Mrs. Mann: I am sorry, Sir Rhys; we are not permitted to criticise that, but I am glad that you have allowed me to get this on the record. I am sorry if I have offended the rules of the Committee.

Mr. William Ross: Surely my hon. Friend is not commenting on the decision of a court, but merely on certain comments which were made?

The Deputy-Chairman: I understood that the hon. Lady was criticising the decision of a magistrate.

Mr. Ross: Sheriff substitute.

The Deputy-Chairman: All right; sheriff substitute. In any case, that can be done only on a substantive Motion.

11.0 p.m.

Mrs. Mann: I shall finish quickly, because the hour is getting late. The statute says that the tenant shall have the right to apply for renewal. That is very reassuring, but it would appear from what I have quoted that the position is reversed, and that the tenant is threatened if he applies for a further renewal.
We have not put down an Amendment to the Bill relating to the Act, but I say this to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. He will recall the introduction of the Act. We were all united upon it. There was no opposition to it. He himself had in his own constituency a great many shopkeepers who were threatened with "buy or quit." If this sort of thing to which I have referred were to happen in Glasgow—it has not happened in Glasgow—and the shopkeepers in the properties in Argyle Street had to go year after year to court and were told in a threatening way, "This is the fourth time you have come and you may not meet with success if you come here again," Glasgow would not stand for it. I hope, therefore, that although we have not put down an Amendment, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can do something about removing this threat from where it is appearing, namely, Aberdeen.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I wish to say a word or two about two or three Acts mentioned in the Schedule. First I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) in what he said about the Education (Exemptions) (Scotland) Act. I should like to see it erased from the Statute Book. I should like also to see taken out of the Schedule the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, but I should like to see it made a permanent feature of the statutes.
As to the first, it appears to me that the Education (Exemptions) (Scotland)


Act, which comes back to us year after year, is becoming one of the permanent educational problems of Scotland. It is one of many disturbing aspects of conditions in the Scottish schools. I have been recently urging that we should try to restrict corporal punishment in Scottish schools and limit it a bit more than at present. I should like to see Scotland keep up with modern trends in education and with England in this respect. But I should not like it to be thought that my sympathies are confined to the schoolchildren of Scotland. I have the deepest sympathy with the school teachers of Scotland, and nowhere more than in the matter of the exemptions of schoolchildren who go to the potato picking. It seems to me that the teachers of Scotland do one of the most important jobs in the community, and that nowadays they are having to do it in some of the most difficult circumstances, particularly in the junior secondary schools, where the problem of the children going off each autumn to the potato harvest is especially acute.
It is the junior secondary schools, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that are specially affected in the city I represent, for instance, only four pupils from fee-paying schools went to the potato harvest this autumn, against 3,772 from the junior secondary schools in Dundee and 430 from the senior secondary schools. It is a clear piece of educational privilege. It is a quite wrong approach to the educational problems we have to face. It is working out that those who enjoy the most education are making the least sacrifice and that those who have the least education are making the most sacrifice.
Teachers in the junior secondary schools are teaching over-crowded classes and so have difficulty in maintaining the interest of the pupils. Now, year after year, when the school year has scarcely begun, the curriculum scarcely planned, they find the school year interrupted. This year the interruption has been even bigger than in previous years.
Only a few days ago the Dundee Education Committee dealt with an application for extension of the period for potato picking. It was asked that the children should be permitted to be away

for 22 days instead of 15. The committee, with a proper sense of the difficult weather conditions with which the farmers were coping, and the importance of the harvest, and having already committed itself to the job, agreed to the extension. It did, however, add a rider stating that it agreed with the greatest detestation. In Dundee and many parts of Scotland, there is a feeling that this procedure ought to be ended. It has continued for a great many years. I know that the Under-Secretary appreciates that feeling on this matter is widespread in Scotland. He understands that many local authorities have been increasingly reluctant to see the curricula of junior secondary schools interrupted.

Mr. James Simmons: Will the hon. Member point out that, in England, if parents keep children away from school for hop-picking they are fined?

Mr. Thomson: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that interruption. It pains me greatly to find any respect in which England leads us in matters of education. I have been dealing with this in the matter of corporal punishment, and here again, England is more fortunate in the matter of child employment in the fields. The Under-Secretary knows that feeling in the teaching profession has been mounting year by year. Teachers are an important section of the community. I hope that something more will now be done to meet this growing body of protest at the employment of children in the harvest.
About a year ago I asked a Question about a mechanical potato harvester demonstrated at the Highland Show. I was promised that there would be experiment and investigation into its use. I would be interested to hear tonight what the outcome has been. I would be just as interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) about the principal details of a machine which he saw in the Soviet Union.
There is still an insufficient effort by the Secretary of State to get a solution of this problem. Some farmers seem to be able to do without child labour, and it seems strange to a layman like myself in agricultural matters that there should not be a greater effort to persuade other farmers to work methods which


would avoid the need for child labour. We cannot be satisfied with conditions in Scottish education until we have got rid of the annual re-appearance of this Bill before the House. I hope this will be the last time we spend time at 11 o'clock at night discussing potato picking by Scottish schoolchildren.
As I have condemned this matter, I would now give some praise to the Rent of Furnished Houses (Control) (Scotland) Act, 1943. We have had this measure before us year by year for 10 years. I feel that it is of such importance that it ought to be made a permanent part of the statutes. I would hope that when that is done the Government will amend and strengthen it in the light of experience of its working. It would seem that the need for rent tribunals and the protection of tenants in furnished accommodation will continue for a considerable number of years. One thing we do need is greater publicity in Scotland in the operation of the Act.
We have heard, from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), and from the Minister of Housing and Local Government, an interesting account of the operation of the rent tribunals in England and, although he has had little notice of the point, perhaps the Under-Secretary will give us some information on the working of rent tribunals in Scotland. My impression is that the Scottish tribunals are less active, perhaps, than those in England. Lack of publicity is one important point. When I go to St. Pancras to catch my train to Dundee, I see large posters put up by the local authority advertising the advice service which is available to the citizens of the area through the rent tribunals. I should like to see Scottish local authorities providing the same sort of service.
In an area with which I am particularly familiar, there is a growing tendency by landlord in effect to use the provisions concerning furnished accommodation to evade the normal Rent Restriction Acts. When tenement property becomes empty, the landlord's immediate effort is to try to sell it. If he is unable to sell it, there is a tendency for him to put a few sticks of furniture in and call it furnished accommodation, letting it under the terms of the Act which I am discussing.
There were some cases in Dundee recently in which room-and-kitchen property of a very poor sort was rented under so-called furnished conditions at 35s. a week. I visited one such property and found that it was a shocking property, with an outside lavatory and altogether in a disgraceful condition for the rent which was being asked. One tenant took steps under the Act and had his rent reduced to 12s. 6d. but——

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member seems to be going into detail on specific cases.

Mr. Thomson: I am in no way criticising the administration of the Act. I have no complaints against the Secretary of State's administration in this respect, although I have many other complaints against his administration. I suggest that the Act requires amendment and strengthening, and I am giving examples of where it ought to be amended.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not in order to discuss the amendment of the Act. It is merely a question of whether it should be continued in this form.

Mr. Thomson: In making this Act a permanent feature of the statutes of the country, an opportunity should be sought by the Government to look at it again so as to see how it could be amended to make it a greater service to the community. In particular, I want the Act considered from the point of view of the protection offered to tenants. If a tenant is served with a notice of eviction, under the Act he has no recourse to the rent tribunal once the notice has been received.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is pursuing the amendment of the Act. We are dealing with the question whether it should be continued for one year.

Mr. Thomson: I think that tenants under the Act should be given the same sort of protection as is given to tenants in unfurnished property, otherwise there is a danger that landlords will use this Act as a means to evade the Rent Restriction Acts. As we have passed a Housing Repairs and Rents Bill which it seems to us is over-generous to the landlords, there is even less excuse than


there was in the past for landlords to do this sort of thing. I leave the matter there: I ask one of the Under-Secretaries to tell us that he would like to see an end to the Education (Exemptions) Act and the other to tell us how we might strengthen the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I think that the Scottish Members on this side of the Committee know this Schedule well. We are glad to see that the Government intend to continue the Tenancy of Shops Act for yet another year, and I think the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) are very relevant. I have felt for some time that the Government were not too keen on continuing this legislation, and I hope they will give us an assurance that they are not intending this year to drop it, and that in future they will not drop it without putting an adequate safeguard in its place, because in the West of Scotland, certainly where I come from, there have often been cases of this kind during the past year.
I hope that no one replying will venture the opinion that, because the Committee did not make any specific recommendation on this, they think that the Act should be dropped, say, after this continuing year. We on this side would be glad to hear, therefore, what the Government have to say about the future outlook for this Tenancy Act. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South has something to say, I am sure we shall all be glad to hear him.

Sir William Darling: I was informing the hon. Gentleman that the Government's intention was to continue the Act. He is arguing that they should do so. They are doing it.

Mr. Ross: We have quite different feelings when we come to consider the Education (Exemption) (Scotland) Act, 1947, which we are discussing tonight by special permission of the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary, who severely guillotined it on the last occasion. The hon. Member should be more careful. He got into a lot of trouble last time when the Scots had a night out on this, because at 4 o'clock or 7 o'clock in the morning we were very

severely guillotined. So I hope he will behave himself tonight.
When one looks at this Education (Exemption) (Scotland) Act, 1947, and reads its purpose, it is surprising that the Government should again be considering its continuation, because the original purpose of the Act was to make temporary provision for the exemption of children from attendance at school, to enable their employment in the in-gathering of the potato harvest. Temporary provision in 1947! Here we are in 1954 carrying it on for another year, to the end of 1955.
I can well remember that Second Reading debate, when the pledge was definitely given that this would be only for a time. It was the Labour Government that was then in power, and we heard then the stories of the great developments being made in mechanical potato harvesting. What has happened? I believe that in that year the number of Scottish schoolchildren over the age of 13 who were employed was somewhere about 40,000. So great is the progress towards a solution of this problem that this year the number is 42,000. Is it any wonder that we are concerned about this?
The Scots are sometimes accused of being rather hypocritical about some things, and when I consider the glowing speeches made about Scottish education and the value that Scotsmen place on education—this is relevant to this Bill. Sir Rhys.

The Deputy-Chairman: It may be relevant to the Bill. We are not discussing the Bill, but whether or not it should be continued annually.

Mr. Ross: Well, the actual fact is that we place such value on education, and under this Bill which we now propose to continue for another year. In the course of the present year, more damage has been done to education than in any of the previous years since 1947. A Question was answered in the House, telling us that in some cases there had been an extension of three weeks given to the children from school.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): indicated dissent.

Mr. Ross: I do not think the Minister gave the specified period. I have seen


that elsewhere. It was the right hon. and gallant Member for Pollak (Commander Galbraith) who answered a supplementary question by me and said that there had been extensions for a considerable period. The actual fact is that these have been necessary because of the type of weather we have been having, but it is flying in the face of all the promises given all these years. Three weeks out of the school curriculum of a child for three years is serious.

Mr. John MacLeod: Mr. John MacLeod (Ross and Cromarty) rose——

Mr. Ross: We have all the night before us. If hon. Members will look at HANSARD, they will find the supplementary answer that was given to me; it was by the Joint Under-Secretary on 26th October, in Vol. 531, column 1740. He said that some were away a fortnight and that in Perth and Angus the local authorities had generously extended the period of exemption.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The hon. Gentleman said that the period had been extended by three weeks.

Mr. Ross: No.

Mr. Stewart: That is what he said. He was, of course, mistaken. I said that the total amount of time spent was up to three weeks.

Mr. Ross: That was exactly what I said. The period of extension had been to three weeks.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Bill is not concerned with the extension of time.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: On a point of order. This is important. Some of us are seriously perturbed about the extensions that can take place under a Measure which is being continued by the Bill. Surely it is in order to deal with what is happening under those exemptions?

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, as an argument for repealing the Act, but hon. Members must not go into the details.

Sir W. Darling: Has the matter that we are discussing now anything to do with expiring Members?

Mr. Hector Hughes: Surely, in giving reasons why this Act should be extended for a few months or

made permanent, it is necessary to give illustrations?

The Deputy-Chairman: Hon. Members can give illustrations but not discuss education.

Mr. Ross: I quite agree with you, Sir Rhys. I am arguing that these extensions are detrimental to child education. I am interested in cases in which exemption has been given for three weeks, and in some cases for 25 days. The children are hardly back at school when they are out again for a week, two weeks or three weeks. I am not complaining about any detrimental physical effect. I am satisfied with the administration of the order by the Secretary of State for Scotland and with how these children are looked after. It may do them good. The point is that it is no substitute for education. Any Scots country schoolmaster will say that the children for whom exemption is sought are generally those most needing education. I do not know whether the hon. Member has any experience of this kind of thing in a country school——

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: I object to these children who volunteer being called "dead-end kids" by an hon. Member.

Mr. John Timmons: I said "dead-end kids from the dead-end schools." I said that advisedly. I was thinking of an education authority in Lanarkshire of which I was chairman which always objected to the use of these children. The Secretary of State for Scotland has superseded local authorities, whose purpose is to administer education, and to whom an appeal was addressed that children should go out voluntarily.

Mr. Ross: Perhaps I might intervene. If the hon. Gentleman had been listening carefully, and if he understood the educational system in Scotland, he would know that there are senior and junior secondary schools. The junior secondary school is the one to which 90 per cent. of the children go. The figures given in the past few weeks amply demonstrate that the majority of the children going to this work, under the Bill now under discussion, are children from the junior secondary schools.
There is a feeling amongst teachers in those schools that they are "dead-end" schools. I am interested in this because I think that there is a great educational


future in Scotland for these schools if they are properly developed, and what makes me so angry is that these schools should be penalised. I have been a schoolmaster. If one is getting on to something new at the start of a session and then, maybe, 10 or 12 children go out potato harvesting—or anything else—it upsets the rest of the children.

Mr. John MacLeod: Then why was it that some 23,000 more children went potato gathering in 1948 than went in 1947? And that was under the hon. Member's own Government's administration.

Mr. Ross: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here when we started this discussion, but I certainly attacked my own Front Bench in regard to this matter. What is worrying me is that there are more schoolchildren going potato harvesting today than at any other time.

Mr. MacLeod: No.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Ross: We have got plenty of time. The rule is suspended. The hon. Gentleman can speak later.

The Chairman: It is true that the rule is suspended, but that does not allow us to discuss an administration.

Mr. Ross: I agree, Sir Charles. The point that I was making was the effect of this principle on education. There is no doubt that it not only affects the children who are away, but it affects the organisation of work in school. That is why in some places, such as Ayrshire, there has never been any co-operation with the Secretary of State in this work.
I want to know whether we are any nearer the point at which we can get rid of this Measure altogether. We have been told about this mechanical device which can harvest potatoes. I am a little doubtful about the impression gained by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgton (Mr. Carmichael) who spoke of this machine that was seen in Russia. So far as I can gather, the machine was not seen harvesting potatoes. The machine was seen, and he was told what it could do, but he did not actually see it in operation.
Are we any nearer that state of affairs when potatoes can be harvested mechanically? What I am afraid of is that if this Government remains in office much longer, in view of its attitude and its effect on farming prosperity, it will ensure that the farmers will not be able to buy such a machine.
I had hoped that one of the means by which we could get rid of this potato harvesting by school children was through the realisation that it was urgent from the point of view of education. I ask the Government to consider the effect it has upon the nation which has come to depend upon its children. This is nothing to be proud of. We have heard that in England if a child picks hops when he should be at school his parents are fined. Surely we can do better than this in Scotland. From the point of view of the children, I sincerely hope that the Government will be able to announce that this is the last time that they will seek this extension.

The Chairman: Mr. Hudson.

Mr. James Hudson: Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, North) rose——

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order, Sir Charles. Some of us are perturbed about the continuation of the Education (Exemptions) (Scotland) Act, 1947, in relation to certain exemptions, and I have felt that there has been little co-operation from you, Sir Charles, in continuing the debate on that subject. It would appear that to jump from the question of furnished lettings to potato harvesting and then to licensing laws is not going to be of much use in formulating opinion in Scotland, unless we have some cooperation.

The Chairman: I do not know what any hon. Member is going to speak about when I call him. [Interruption.] Well, I can guess, of course.

Mr. Hudson: I could talk about potatoes, but I do not think this is an appropriate time for me to deal with that matter, especially as there are so many Members from Scotland who are able to do so. But I am going to deal with a matter of great importance.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hudson: No, I will not. I think Scotland has had a good run.

Mr. Carmichael: The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) is not a Scotsman.

Mr. Hudson: I wish to deal with a matter which has been on my mind during our discussion of this Bill. The Licensing Act, 1953, which is the last in the list of Measures in the Schedule, is a very long Act. I have it with me, but before I mention the number of pages in it I will promise not to read all of it in order to illustrate my case. There are 120 pages, and Part II of the Act, which is sought to be continued, deals with important matters. It is suggested that Part II shall be continued for longer than a year—until 1956. According to Section 67 of that Act, it is laid down that
This Part …"—
that is Part II—
shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-four …
That was seven months ago. The thing has been dead for seven months, so that this Act, which is for the purpose of continuing expiring laws, is out of order. I do not know whether we can have a ruling on that matter. In the proviso it says that, under the Interpretation Act, it shall have effect as if this part of the Act had been repealed by another Act. To an uninstructed lay mind, and not at all learned in these matters. I understand that mumbo-jumbo to mean that the whole thing is finished twice over. The part of the Act to be continued by this Bill was finished on 31st March, 1954. That is an astonishing state of affairs, particularly when the matter to be dealt with is one of great importance.
The part of this Act mentioned in the Schedule deals with the whole of the licensing for the areas that were blitzed during the war. The former Home Secretary was attached to the principles laid down in this part, and on occasions he told the House that it had been taken as a model for legislation dealing with licensing laws introduced by the Conservative Government. That may be so, but it is to me a defective process. When we could at least be dealing with the war-damaged areas under the ordinary

licensing laws of the country, the Government are insisting on keeping alive the provisions of this special Act. I have addressed private questions to the Home Office, and have as yet had no replies, about the job which was provided for under Part II, but as far as I can get any information it appears that it has been done. New public houses have been opened in newly planned areas, and many public houses blitzed and laid bare have been removed under the provisions of that Act. I should like to know what the total of licences removed was.

The Chairman: I think the hon. Gentleman is now going into detail. The only question is whether the Act should be continued or not.

Mr. Hudson: I felt I might run into that snag sooner or later. I should have liked to have heard from the Government whether a lot of the work which was to be done under that Act has been done as was intended, and if so I might have been persuaded to fall in with their suggestion. I bow to your Ruling, and if I cannot press the point I will pass on to something else. It ought to be possible under the licensing laws of the country to examine the claims of every new public house in war damaged areas, or in other areas, without recurrence to Part II of this Act. The work could be better done that way than by continuing Part II.

The Chairman: It is only Part II that we are discussing at the moment.

Mr. Hudson: I am giving a reason for dropping Part II. I say that there exist, in the ordinary law, provisions to make it possible to deal with licensed premises in all manner of areas. I do not want to see Part II continued. I thought that this was a bad Bill at the time it was introduced. You will prevent me from saying why it was a bad Bill, Sir Charles, so I content myself with saying that it was a bad Bill. The liquor trade has carried on all sorts of dodges behind the scenes, whereby it has been able to get its claims for licences continued under Part II. It would never have been able to have them continued if the ordinary licensing laws had been followed.
Under Part II, for example, the procedure of the courts to which everybody, at any rate south of the Border, is


accustomed—of objection by members of the public who do not want to see certain licences extended—cannot be followed; the whole thing is cut and dried by planning authorities and by five or six representatives of the full bench of magistrates, who decide, often in consultation with the trade, what sort of licences should be granted.
I dislike that process, as do my friends. Part II ought to be abrogated for good. I am sure that it would be easy for the Government to accept my plea, because the very terms of Part II indicate that it can be looked upon as dead since 31st March of this year. I hope that the Government will keep it dead and will seriously consider a return to the general licensing law of the country, by which the public has the right of objecting to the granting of certain licences.

Mr. Manuel: I want to say something about the Education (Exemptions) (Scotland) Act, 1947. I had not intended to take part in the debate, but I feel that the attitude of the Government has been so complacent that we ought to attack the matter with greater vigour. There is far too much complacency at the Scottish Office, and on the part of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland, who are directly in charge of this matter. It is becoming accepted throughout Scotland as a permanent thing that children should gather in the potato harvest.
In many parts of Scotland there is great resentment at the continuation of this Act, and I feel certain that many farmers are not desirous of being parties to the use of child labour for this work. I should like the Joint Under-Secretaries to consider seriously whether it would not be far better if they devoted what talents and opportunities they have to producing an alternative method of carrying out this work.
11.45 p.m.
I have had serious complaints from up and down Scotland by members of education committees. The members of those committees are giving their time on a voluntary basis in order that our children may have the best that can be offered in education. They feel that this Bill should not be passed if it includes this particular provision, which means that their voluntary efforts are being

nullified through the action of the Secretary of State for Scotland. These committees are formed by members of county councils and the large burghs and the churches in Scotland, and yet when they tell the Secretary of State that they do not want the children to be allowed to claim exemption for three weeks for this purpose, the Secretary of State says, "You must claim this exemption whether you like it or not." That is the reply which is given even where there is a unanimous decision; always, it is "You must allow your children to claim the right of exemption."
The education committees are backed by the best of our teaching profession. I used to be convenor for two schools, and I have been told by a headmaster that when a proportion of the children in his care were taken away for three weeks, one of two things had to happen after they had returned—and let it be remembered that very often, in junior secondary schools, a large proportion of one class may go. What had to happen, according to this headmaster, was that those children had to be put back three weeks in order to cover the curriculum they had missed, or they had to be given special tuition; and, of course, schools have not the staff necessary to give special tuition.

The Chairman: I have given the hon. Member a lot of latitude, but surely this is a matter of administration?

Mr. Manuel: No, Sir, it is anything but administration; what I am doing is to give the views of people who serve on education committees as to why this Act should not be continued. I am not dealing with the administration of the Act; I am giving the views of people in the teaching profession and those who serve on our education committees. I have given the opinion of one headmaster, and I should like to finish the case I was quoting. What happens is that the children who were ingathering the potato harvest have a blank three weeks which they never catch up throughout the whole of the rest of the session.
I know that it may be a matter for amusement to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), because he is one of those hon. Members who say that this does the children no harm. But I wonder if he has ever picked potatoes? I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) was not sufficiently emphatic


about it. This is heart-breaking and back-breaking work, and no child ought to be employed on it. I am quite convinced of that; and I speak as one who has had a taste of it.

The Chairman: A predecessor of mine in the Chair in 1948 made quite clear what can be discussed in debate on this Bill. He said that a Member
… can generally … discuss an Act which he wishes or does not wish to continue, but he cannot do so in too great a detail."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 1188]
I hope the hon. Member will try to keep to the general point of whether he wants the Act or not.

Mr. Manuel: I thank you, Sir Charles. My recollection of Erskine May on the matter is that it does not quite bear the interpretation of the Chairman who preceded you. It is entirely within the discretion of the Chair. If the Chair feels I am completely out of order, I would ask you, Sir Charles, to tell me so and put me down, and leave it at that.

The Chairman: I was hoping I should not have to do that.

Mr. Manuel: I hope you will be fair in your attempt to do it, anyway.

The Chairman: I hope I am always fair.

Mr. Manuel: I rather doubt it.

The Chairman: The hon. Member must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Manuel: If you feel it is an insult, I will withdraw it. I have been pulled up when dealing with an Act that ought not to be renewed. I rather feel I have put your back up.

The Chairman: Nothing gets my back up. It is not a pleasure to me to interrupt or curtail a speech, but I have to carry out the rules. I think the hon. Member has been going into too much detail, and I hope he will keep to my Ruling.

Mr. Manuel: I certainly do not want to cause you further anxiety, but perhaps, Sir Charles, you would give a Ruling on what is the extent of detail. Should I be in order or not in quoting the view of a headmaster? May I talk about an education committee?

The Chairman: One can judge only by what is said when it is said. In my view, too great detail was being entered into by the hon. Member, and I hope he will not continue with too great detail.

Mr. Manuel: I will depart from the résumé of the views of people working the Education Acts in Scotland, and not inflict them upon the Committee, although I think those are the most important views that it would benefit the Committee to know.
I would ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State some questions. I believe that the case for the discontinuance of the Act has been strengthened by the decision of certain hard Tory education committees, which is to give greater exemption than was envisaged when the Act went through in 1947. I think that decision has aroused resentment.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State should consider the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton in his eloquent speech, and that people able to do only light labour should be employed on the potato picking rather than schoolchildren. My hon. Friend was completely in order. At least, he was not pulled up, so I think I shall be allowed to cover this part of the argument. There are registering at labour exchanges certain people fit only for the lighter type of labour. I say that a certain proportion of those people would be able to undertake this work.
Recruitment of that type of adult labour would be preferable to using school children. It is too bad that education committees, composed of people voluntarily working our educational system, should be turned into potato committees by the Scottish Office whether they like it or not. I hope that we shall hear from the Secretary of State something about this Bill being discontinued, and about how long he thinks we shall have to suffer this weakening of our educational system. Many children are leaving school without the ability they ought to have because of the recurring periods of absence. The Scottish Office has rather played up the point that voluntary application for exemption is patriotic. I am convinced that not one in 20 of the children who apply—or of the parents, who make the actual decision —is moved by patriotism. What drives


the parents to apply for exemption for their children to go potato harvesting is——

The Chairman: I have warned the hon. Member several times, and I must now ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Manuel: I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your forbearance and toleration. I bow to your Ruling.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I agree with what has been said about the disturbance of education. Despite what the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) said, there have been cases south of the Border. As a boy, I did harvest work during the 1914–18 war. I remember that it did as much harm to the boys left at school as it did to us who had gone harvesting. We used to send letters to the boys still at school telling them what a wonderful time we were having. There was only half the form left at school, and the master took things easy because when we returned there would have to be a sort of doubling up. Parents, as well as teachers, complained about the disturbance.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who is a school teacher, will agree that there is not only disturbance of the education of the children who are absent from school and the teacher, but of the scholars left at school. I appreciate the difficulties over the potato harvest in Scotland which would have to be faced if the practice of granting exemptions were suddenly stopped: but so long as there is confidence that exemption is to be permitted year after year, nothing will be done to harvest potatoes by any other means.
Reference has been made to my having said that I saw a potato harvesting machine in the Soviet Union. Perhaps it is my fault if hon. Members are under the impression that I saw this machine digging potatoes. I am sorry if I gave that impression. I saw it at an exhibition in Moscow. I saw it demonstrated, but not in practical use. It seemed to me a very strong machine and certainly competent to do the job. I have been told that our difficulty is the number of stones, but there are stones, surely, in the Soviet Union. If there are a lot of stones in the field which the farmer intends to plant with potatoes, why not

first go over it with the potato harvester and pick up the stones? Afterwards, the potatoes could be planted and later picked with no trouble. When cultivating a garden, we first rake out the stones.

12 midnight.

Captain Duncan: Did the hon. Member bring home a leaflet explaining this Russian harvester? Has he any information about it? I am interested in this harvester.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think we had better keep to the Schedule.

Mr. Bence: I am sorry, but I have no leaflet on the harvester. I have asked the Foreign Secretary to make the necessary inquiries in Russia. No doubt the British Ambassador could go to the exhibition and get all the information he wants about the machine.
Will the Under-Secretary tell us that within a reasonably short time we shall put an end to the employment of children for this purpose? Necessity is the mother of invention, and if the agricultural technicians and the farmers were told that within a stated number of years we should put an end to this practice, I am sure that the inventors of this country would provide a machine which would do the job.
I do not doubt that in 1946 there was some justification for the introduction of this Act. There were difficulties and a case could be made for it. But surely that justification will not be offered every year. Surely we shall not suggest that, in the twentieth century, we must continue to use children for this work because there is no other way of doing it. No doubt, in the nineteenth century, when they tried to stop the practice of pushing boy chimney sweeps up the chimney, people claimed that there was no other way of sweeping the chimney; they had not thought of using a brush. The same may be true of the potato harvest.
I think we are on the way to solving the problem and I hope we shall be told that the employment of children for this purpose during school time, which disturbs the teachers and both the children who go to this work and those who remain in the classes, will be brought to an end.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): I do not dispute the suggestion that if we take


a number of children away from any class in September for a fortnight or three weeks it disturbs the education of the class. Nor do I contest the statement that many people and many local authorities in Scotland do not like taking children away from school, even for this short period. I understand that and I accept the point. But the problem for this Government is precisely the problem which confronted our predecessors. What are we to do? If there are no children available, we shall not be able to lift the potato crop.

Mrs. Alice Cullen: Re-form the Women's Land Army.

Mr. Stewart: The conclusion which any Government would reach is that until we can find a mechanical alternative we cannot do without the children.

Mr. Manuel: rose—

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member has already taken up a great deal of time.

Mr. Manuel: That is quite an unfair criticism. The hon. Gentleman says that he is convinced, or the Scottish Office are convinced, that the only alternative is a mechanical contrivance that will do this job. Has a labour alternative been considered instead of using children, as against the mechanical?

Mr. Stewart: I was about to deal with that in due course.
I was saying that there is no practical way of coping with this large problem at present, other than by the production of a piece of mechanism. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) asked if there were not two other ways, and whether we could not make use of some other kind of labour. He raised this point with me two years ago and, as he knows, I went into it then very carefully. Last year I met the Glasgow education authority, with my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Snadden), and the head of the Ministry of Labour in Scotland; and we looked at this very problem.
The Glasgow representatives said, "But are there not unemployed persons—adults who could do this work?" And

the head of the Ministry of Labour in Scotland took out all his tables and figures and proved, even to those from Glagow, that there are not the bodies available to do this job. Last year 31,390 children were granted exemption. We do not yet have the figure for this year, but it is something of that order. With the exception of 1949, the exemption figures have fallen steadily: in 1948, 40,000; 1949, 43,000, and then a fall to 37,000, 36,000, 32,000 and 31,000. Therefore, I do not think the Committee should be over-anxious about that.
There is a steady fall, and hon. Members will say, "We hope it continues." Personally, I shall not object. The fall is partly due to the fact that there has been a fall in the potato crop. It has fallen now to a point that is, in our view, the lowest that we can let it go to. This year it had fallen to 167,000 acres. My right hon. Friend does not feel that it would be right to allow our potato output to fall below an output production of that amount. So we are faced in the years to come with the same amount of potatoes to lift and the same extreme difficulty in getting adult labour. I could give the figures for adult labour employed this year.
Hon. Members accuse us, and myself, of complacency. I do not object, but I would ask the Committee to believe sincerely that we take the most extreme care and exercise every possible effort to get labour other than the labour of children. We scour everywhere, but it is not possible with all our efforts to do without that very large number of children.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Has the hon. Gentleman studied the farmers who use only adult labour, and inquired whether other farmers could not be persuaded to copy their example?

Mr. Stewart: Yes. Some farmers live in areas where there is adult labour available. We have used adult labour this year. The seasonal labour force produced 600 man-weeks, and volunteers 450 man-weeks. Help was also given by Forestry Commission workers and employees of county councils, and there was some help from the Armed Forces. There are, of course, some farms which do not use any children.

Mr. Timmons: There is also a grain crop in Scotland, which is harvested by adult labour. Surely it should be possible to use some of that labour to assist in the potato harvest.

Mr. Stewart: We thought of that, too, but the grain harvest is always a good many weeks earlier than the potato harvest. In Scotland, it sometimes starts in the middle of August, which is in the holiday period and we have no difficulty in getting volunteers. We do not get these people in the colder and wetter weather of September and October, and sometimes November. On Monday of this week, 20 per cent. of the potato crop in Scotland had still to be lifted. It is a very serious matter for the food of our people.
The other alternative is a machine. Hon. Members have quite properly asked me how we were getting on with this alternative. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said, as he was entitled to, that it was time that an all-purpose machine was produced. I was for some years closely associated with a private company which tried to produce a universal harvester for the Highland potato crop, but our scheme did not come off. The Government have research stations in Scotland and in England devoting much time to this matter. The last official test made was disappointing. It concerned a machine which separated stones from potatoes by passing them through water. The potatoes floated and the stones fell. That seemed the answer, until it was discovered that the potatoes that had been soaked did not keep. The experts, therefore, turned down that scheme.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Question before the Committee is, "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill." Hon. Members ought not to go into details upon specific points.

Mr. Stewart: In spite of all the criticisms, we cannot do without the exemption of children this year, or, as far as we can see, next year, or for quite a little time to come. I can give the Committee an assurance that we shall continue to do everything to advance the prospects of alternatives so that the number of exempted children need not continue to be high.
Now I turn to the point made by the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge

and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) about the Tenancy of Shops Act. We have no intention of dropping this Act, which has gone on from year to year. It may be that next year we shall have to ask the Committee to continue it for another year. It is a very valuable Measure for small and large shops. It has been a great success. If it is necessary to do so, we shall certainly consider whether it should be continued next year. My own view is that, on the figures we have, we may possibly have to take it further.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Manuel: My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) made the point that a certain value had been lost because shopkeepers were having only one year's protection. Should not this period be made longer—say, two years?

The Deputy-Chairman: I note that the hon. Member supports that view.

Mr. Hector Hughes: It is a very strange procedure on the part of the Joint Under-Secretary to reply before the debate is concluded. I doubt whether he will have another opportunity of replying to the one point which I wish to make.
This Bill relates to five earlier statutes, and it is remarkable that it proposes to extend their duration to two dates which are dates probably just before the next General Election. It is noteworthy that the two dates to which they are proposed to be extended are 31st December, 1955, and 31st March, 1956.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is now referring to Clause 1. We are discussing the Question, "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. Hughes: I am dealing with the 11 statutes set out in the Schedule, Sir Rhys. I am discussing the Schedule, and pointing out that these 11 statutes are to be extended, by this Bill, to two dates falling just before the time when a General Election is likely to take place. There are eight statutes in Part I and three in Part II—those are the 11 statutes to which I am referring.
With respect, I think that my point is a perfectly valid criticism of the conduct of the Government in choosing those dates for the prolongation of these statutes. The statutes are either good or bad. If they are good, why should not


their prolongation be made permanent? If they are bad, why should they be prolonged at all. In my submission the Government's conduct in selecting those dates is open to criticism.

The Deputy-Chairman: The dates are not now in issue. They are in Clause 1, as I have already pointed out.

Mr. Hughes: Surely, Sir Rhys, one cannot consider the Schedule without the Clauses which relate to them.

The Deputy-Chairman: But the Clauses have already been passed, and we are now discussing the Schedule.

Mr. Hughes: Well, I have made the point, so I shall pass from it.
To illustrate my argument, I shall take one statute which has just been referred to by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland; and a propos your Ruling, Sir Rhys, may I say that that Minister has said that it is the intention of the Government to put these 11 statutes into a similar Bill this time next year? If that is the attitude of the Government, why, if the statutes are good, should they not be made permanent now? The statute on which I wish to concentrate was referred to by the Joint Under-Secretary. It is the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act, 1949. That was passed by a Labour Government to provide for the renewal of tenancy of shops and thereby protect tenants from eviction.
I see, Sir Rhys, that you are restive, if I may put it respectfully, but in my submission I am entitled to present an argument on the goodness or badness of the particular statute which it is sought to prolong, otherwise the Committee would be acting blindly and would have no reason——

The Deputy-Chairman: The Question before the Committee is, "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill." The hon. and learned Gentleman may think it a bad Schedule because it contains one statute or another, but he cannot go on to details.

Mr. Hughes: With respect, I can say that the Schedule is either good or bad because it contains for prolongation either a good statute or a bad one. You allowed the Joint Under-Secretary to make that comment about the intention of the Government this time next year, Sir Rhys. All I am saying is that the

right hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary said the very reverse when this Bill with which I am now dealing was before the House on a former occasion. He then said
I can only express the hope that this will be a temporary Measure …
Now the Minister, his colleague, has expressed the hope that this time next year it will be included in a Bill similar to this. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) said on that occasion
We on this side of the House regret the circumstances which have made this Bill necessary
that is, the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act, 1949—
and I deplore the intervention of the State into new fields, unless the necessity for that intervention has been abundantly proved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1949; Vol 461, c. 1747.]

The Deputy-Chairman: I assume that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that in the discussion of that Measure, when it would have been in order. It is not in order now.

Mr. Hughes: I do not wish to contest your Ruling in the slightest degree, Sir Rhys, but the point that I am making, in my submission, is valid, namely, that the Government are open to criticism for the time that they have selected to prolong these statutes in the Schedule. The statutes in the Schedule are either good or bad, and my submission is that if they are good they should be prolonged permanently and if they are bad they should not be prolonged at all.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I think that hon. Members who have contributed to the debate are entitled to a reply. Perhaps I may ask a question on another statute in the Schedule. I had hoped to have the other matters cleared out of the way before I raised this question, and I do hope that something will be said about the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act and other matters which have been under discussion.
We have in the Schedule the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1951, Section 4, which is sought to be continued for a further year. For my part, I should like to ask the Joint Under-Secretary if we may be told why it is desirable to continue Section 4 of that Act. This Section has never been discussed in the House of Commons proper.


It was contained in a Bill introduced late in 1950. It was a five-Clause Bill, and was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), who was then one of the Under Secretaries of State for Scotland. She said in justifying Clause 4 of that Bill—and I wonder whether the Government will give similar justification for continuing it now—
Clause 4 is where we are enacting in statutory form, for a period of three years, the provision for the approval by the Control Department of local authority borrowing, which in Scotland at the present time is contained in the Defence (Local Government) (Scotland) Regulations. In present circumstances the need to make the best use of our capital resources and to prevent inflation makes it inevitable that this provision should be retained, and we feel that it is much preferable that, if the provision has to be retained, it ought to be in statutory form."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 18th November, 1950; c. 1758.]
That is all that has been said in our discussions about Section 4.
The House accepted as justification for it that the Government had to have control of the expenditure of her capital resources, and should thereby be able to take action to prevent inflation. In the last three years the Government have given up all control over capital resources by all authorities in this country with the exception of the local authorities. Only this week the rest of building controls were removed. If they think that the position has so improved that anyone can use capital resources in any way they think fit—so long as they do not conflict with planning authorities—in erecting cinemas, hotels and other buildings, why should local authorities continue to be restricted in their expenditure of capital resources? Why should they not be allowed to borrow money as they think fit and provide services for the people they serve? The Government cannot plead as the only justification for this the one that has hitherto been offered.
I wonder whether the enactment is to be continued for another year for another reason than that given by my hon. Friend when it was originally enacted. If so, I should like to hear it. It is regrettable that the great local authorities should be picked out as the one institution, or person if one likes, which will not be given freedom to spend their money as

they think fit, and that authorities like Lanark Town Council, Lanarkshire County Council and Glasgow Corporation should have to go to the Secretary of State and ask his permission to borrow money to carry out their projects in the interests of their people.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has raised a new point not mentioned in the debate so far. Surely, if he had listened to my hon. Friend the Minister of Works explaining the reasons why building licences should go he would understand the position. It is that labour and materials are available, and there has been no general restriction, although there have been certain limitations, on the issue of licences for some considerable time. I think there is no danger of resources for building being insufficient to meet anything in future.
Of course, there is the question of the money involved; because it is not all local government money. Government money is also concerned. Local authorities are responsible for a very large part of the investment in building, and the Government do not feel that the time has come when they can give up control over the expenditure of local authorities in that connection. That is why Section 4 is being continued.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Fraser: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not agree that where Government money is involved there is no difficulty at all; the local authority must go to the Secretary of State? It is where no Government money is involved and the scheme is not grant-aided that it is wrong that local authorities should still have to go to the Secretary of State to get approval for borrowing money.

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot go into that matter in detail.

Mr. Fraser: That is the whole point that arises from the continuing of this provision for another year.

Commander Galbraith: I have answered the hon. Gentleman to the utmost extent possible under the rules of order.
I now want to deal with two or three points raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson). I understood from his remarks with regard to the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, that he felt that it should become permanent legislation, and, therefore, there was no question of doing away with it at present. That is a policy of complete defeatism. The Government believe that if they continue to carry out their policy and continue with their housing programme the housing situation in Scotland will be very much improved. As a result, there will not be the difficulties in connection with the letting of furnished apartments which now exist.
I should have thought that his suggestion that landlords were getting round the Rent Restrictions Acts by putting a few sticks of furniture into a house was a justification for the continuation of this Act for the moment, and it seems obvious that it works very well from the illustration he gave, where a rent of 35s. a week had been reduced to, I think, 12s. 6d. a week. In these circumstances it must be obvious that this Act should be retained for a further temporary period; but it would be a defeatist attitude to make it permanent.

Mr. J. Hudson: On a point of order. During the time that your predecessor was in the Chair, Sir Rhys, I pointed out that the matter I then raised should be ruled upon as ultra vires. I said that Part II of the Licensing Act, 1953, is actually dead, and has been dead for seven months. Unless a reply can be given, I submit that you are bound to rule upon that question.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not my function to rule upon an issue of that sort.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Perhaps I can answer the hon. Gentleman.
Part II of the Licensing Act, 1953, was renewed by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1953, which was passed later in the same year, so as to extend it until 31st March, 1955. If the hon. Member looks at that statute he will see how it is that the Act is still alive. The Act itself is merely a consolidated form of the earlier Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1945. That Act was renewed by the last Government and has

since been renewed by this one. The reason for its renewal is that it was contemplated in 1945 that the work involved should be finished by 1950 or 1951, when the Act expired. It was not, in fact, possible to complete that work, and there is still a good deal to be done. All those who are concerned agree that the Act has worked well.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) does not think so, but I can tell him that from inquiries which I have made, I have found that everybody who has had anything to do with the working of the Act thinks that it would be wrong to let it expire now and thereby jettison the advantages which it provides before the work is completed; so, we propose to continue it for another year.

Mr. Hudson: I have given the hon. Gentleman's Department notice by the request for information that I should like to know what precisely is still to be done. Could he say what is the total percentage of tasks still remaining?

The Chairman: I do not think that that arises here.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not think that I could give an answer, in any event, to the hon. Gentleman's question, Sir Charles. It would mean going into the matter in considerable detail.

Mr. Hudson: But is it not the case that, if it can be shown that there is no ground for further work being done, or that nearly all the work has been done, there is then a fair reason for not continuing that Act? Is that not what is usually done? Is not such an Act allowed to expire, and the Government then falls back on some other general legislation which would deal with the case?

The Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman had put down an Amendment to leave out that Act from the Bill, it would have been one thing; but the Question before the Committee now is, "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. Hudson: I have a manuscript Amendment here which does precisely that; but I fell in with the suggestion that I should raise this matter in general discussion on the Question "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill." The general gravamen of my case is that the job is nearly done, and surely that argument still stands.
I submit that that is a reason, and I hope that you, Sir Charles, will not rule me out of order. I do not want the Under-Secretary of State to give a long account, but to give me a general estimate of the total percentage of work still to be done.

The Chairman: I was not aware of that.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Even if I am in order on this matter, I could not give the necessary answer, as I have already explained.

Mr. Hudson: I understand, Sir Charles, that you have not ruled me out of order. I have put the matter, I think, very fairly, and I am not pressing for long tables of figures; but could not the Under-Secretary say something in general? That is all I ask.

The Chairman: I am not ruling the hon. Member out of order, but I understood the Under-Secretary to say that he could not give an answer.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

STANDING ORDERS [MONEY RESOLUTIONS]

12.40 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move,
That the amendment hereinafter stated in Part I of the Schedule be made to Standing Order No. 86A, relating to Public Business, and that the several amendments hereinafter stated in Part II of the Schedule, be made to the Standing Orders relating to Private Business:—

SCHEDULE

Part I

Standing Order No. 86A. Leave out from beginning of line 9 to end of Standing Order.

Part II

Standing Order 156A. Line 7, leave out from "borough," to end of line 8.

Standing Order 156A.Line 15, leave out "or Part II."

Standing Order 156A.Line 16, at end, add "or under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954."

Standing Order 156B. Line 5, leave out "or Part II."

Standing Order 156B Line 14, leave out from "four," to "of," in line 15.

Standing Order 156B Line 22, leave out "or the Secretary of State."

Standing Order 191. Line 11, leave out "or Part II."

Standing Order 191.Line 12, at end, add "or under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Scotland) Act, 1954."—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

I want to apologise to the House for asking it at this hour of the morning to consider what may look at first sight to be one of the most mysterious Motions that has ever appeared on the Order Paper, but let me allay anxiety by saying at once that all these Amendments spring from one point, and that if the House approves the general purpose, this, I am advised, is the technically correct way to give effect to it.

On 17th February this year, a Resolution was passed by the House without any opposition rectifying for the remainder of this Session certain difficulties that arose from the passage into law of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954. The trouble arose because that Act changed the basis of the equalisation grants payable to Scottish local authorities. Under it grants in Scotland are based not on the formula laid down in the Local Government Act, 1948, but on the Goschen formula, making those equalisation grants in Scotland amount to 11/80ths of the total sum paid by way of equalisation grants in England. This means that expenditure by Scottish local authorities will no longer affect grants to Scottish authorities but expenditure by local authorities in England and Wales will now do that.

It will readily be seen how this must affect the scope of Money Resolutions. That Resolution of 17th February had the effect of correcting Money Resolutions and Bills already before Parliament at that time, and, indeed, covers anything that may happen in the rest of the Session, but as for the longer future, my right hon. Friend who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury mentioned the probability that it would be necessary to make some minor alterations in Standing Orders. It is simply in fulfilment of that that I am now moving this Motion.

It involves one Amendment to Public Business Standing Orders and several to Private Business Standing Orders. The Amendments of Private Business Standing Orders are strictly consequential upon the passing of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland)

Act, and they explain themselves. In effect, they just bring those Standing Orders up to date in the light of the new 1954 statute.

I ask the leave of the House to dwell for one minute on the Amendment to Public Business Standing Order 86A. That Order as it stood brought Private Bills under the sway of Public Money Standing Orders, subject to the exceptions provided in Private Business Standing Orders in the case of provisions affecting Exchequer equalisation grants. It is now proposed to omit the last three lines of that Standing Order. I will explain the effect of this.

It has the effect of applying the exemption to any exceptions prescribed by Private Business Standing Orders and it removes the limitation of such exceptions to those affecting the equalisation grants. This involves the broadening of the exemption in theory only, since there are at present no other exceptions. It has the virtue that it will avoid recurrence of the difficulties encountered in 1948, and now, in 1954; the difficulties of having to deal simultaneously with Amendment of Public and Private Business Standing Orders. It is true that the generality of this Amendment to Standing Order 86A in theory puts the Chairman of Ways and Means in a position to widen the extent to which Private Business may in future be exempt from money procedure; but the fact remains that any amendment of Private Business Standing Orders enabling grants to be increased without a Money Resolution would still need the Queen's recommendation. So the door is not held open too wide.

I apologise to the House if I have failed to make the matter crystal clear, but I trust that I have convinced hon. Members that we are trying to do something sensible, not sinister.

12.46 a.m.

Mr. Ede: The Financial Secretary need have no doubt that he has made the matter clear. It is a complicated matter because it deals with one of those sacred cows of our administration, the Goschen formula, which no one has dared to criticise because to do so, and to suggest that it should be reviewed, would have caused such interracial controversy in the House that the task of conducting business with decorum would have become almost impossible. I understand that Mr. Goschen, as he was then, invented the formula for dealing with these local expenditures on the basis of 80 per cent. for England, 11 per cent. for Scotland, and 9 per cent. for Ireland.
The alteration of our relationships with Ireland has led to that 9 per cent. disappearing from the calculation. Therefore, we now get the amazing fraction of 11/80ths instead of 11 per cent. as the basis for the calculations. The Act of 1948, brought up, in the case of practically every Private Bill coming from a local authority, and of a good many coming from Government Departments, the question of this involving a possible increase in the grant to be paid from the equalisation fund. Although sometimes the matter was microscopic, I think that some Acts were passed before it was discovered that they had involved an increased charge on the Exchequer.
I understand that these Amendments of Standing Orders are devised to enable these matters to be dealt with in a way which will not give rise to the pernickety discussion of detail which perhaps strict application of Standing Orders would have entailed. No serious damage is done to the control of public expenditure by the House as a result of the proposed Amendments. Inasmuch as they ease the discussion of public matters before this House we can accept them. I thank the Financial Secretary for the way in which he has placed them before us.

ARMED FORCES (IRISH CITIZENS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wills.]

12.50 a.m.

Mr. William Teeling: I, too, apologise for keeping the House for a little longer. I am trying to deal with the question of Irish-born people in the Armed Forces, especially in the Army. Having already obtained a categorical reply from the Navy and the Air Force, both of which say that there is no Department or part of those Services into which an Irishman cannot enter, I want it to be made quite clear that that is also the case in the Army.
I raise this matter because of a case which was brought to my notice in my constituency. As a result of it, I have heard of other cases. It seems that although it may be understood at the War Office and in the House that there is nothing to prevent a man born in Southern Ireland from entering any part of the Army, that is not always understood in the Army itself.
This was the case of a boy, a constituent of mine, who had left Southern Ireland and come to this country when aged four. He later sought to join the Army voluntarily, before his time for National Service. Both his father and mother served in the British Forces during the War. This boy was particularly anxious to get into the Army and into the cipher section. This is part of the letter which I received from his parents:
He has tried to get a training in cipher and had set his heart on it, but he has been told all along that because he was born in Southern Ireland he would not be accepted. In fact, only last week"—
this was last July—
a sergeant from the cipher squad told him that they had made it a rule that people born in Southern Ireland would not be accepted for cipher, no matter what qualifications they had. My son has had various interviews with his C.O. who always said he was awaiting definite news from the P.S.O. Now apparently he has had the news because I have had a letter today saying that he is definitely turned down.
I took the matter up with the War Office just before the House rose for the

Summer Recess. In August, it was cleared and this boy was allowed to take up these duties. I understand that he has been very satisfactory.
I then had another letter from a total stranger saying that his son seemed to be in an exactly similar predicament and continuing:
He had been selected for a cipher course by the P.S.O. of his unit when suddenly, two days after he had started the course, orders came from the War Office that he was not to continue it as he was of Irish parentage. I wrote to his C.O. giving him particulars about the family record and my son was reinstated within a fortnight. I shall be very interested to know the outcome of the case of your constituent. In my case it appears that the P.S.O. who originally posted him had not heard of any regulations about the non-acceptability for cipher work of National Service men of Irish origin. It appears from my son's experience that the prohibition is not absolute. This being so, I feel very strongly that inquiries into the boy's background should be initiated by the authorities before he is rejected. I am not aware of any such inquiries having been made in my son's case; in fact, if I had not taken the initiative he would have continued to bear the slur on his integrity implied by his rejection.
If possible, I should like that point cleared up by the War Office. If any man born in Southern Ireland can enter this part of the Army or any other part of it, then I think that should be made clear to everybody concerned in the Army. If there is any doubt at all about whether it is wise or suitable, however, then I do not think any Irishman would disagree with the point of view that each case should be considered separately. I think it is wrong to make a general rule other than that anybody born outside Great Britain should undergo some form of screening for special jobs and nobody could object to that. But just to be told that because one was born in Dublin, Belfast, Paris, Calcutta, or wherever it might be, one cannot go in for the particular thing that one wanted seems to be rather unfair.
That is why I should like to make this plea to the War Office. I gather from the Navy and the Air Force that there is no need to make a plea in their case, and I hope there is no need from the War Office's point of view. After all, Ireland and England have always kept very closely together from the military point of view. In the last war our best men in the Army, Navy and Air Force came


very largely from Ireland. I believe we had more people from Southern Ireland in the last war than in the first, and if ever there is another war I think it will be very necessary that we get a considerable number from Southern Ireland again.
Not only do we have generals from all over Ireland—Field Marshal Earl Alexander and Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery at the top, and Sir John Dill—but we have the rank and file of the Irish Guards and many other regiments coming from Ireland. In fact, I do not know what we would do without them. Therefore, I hope the War Office will make it clear to everyone concerned that there is no slur on having been born in Ireland, and that if screening is necessary that will be done afterwards and there will not be a general rule that all Irish-born subjects are ipso facto under suspicion.

12.56 a.m.

Mr. E. M. Cooper-Key: I am very surprised to learn that men in Southern Ireland should need a reminder that their services can be utilised in this country. I had the honour during the last war of serving with an Irish Regiment of which the personnel were approximately 60 per cent. from Southern Ireland, and I understand that the intake today is maintained in the same scale. I remember that in the last war, when troops went back to Ireland they went back in plain clothes, and there were no cases of any men not returning for duty. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for War will emphasise the need, and the great feelings we have had in the past, for this strong recruitment in Southern Ireland to our Forces in this country.

12.57 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean): May I, first of all, say how grateful I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) for providing us with an opportunity of discussing this important subject. I think it would perhaps help to clear up any misapprehensions that may exist on this subject if I begin by stating the general principles which obtain in regard to citizens of the Irish Republic serving in the British Army.
Section 95 of the Army Act makes special provision in regard to aliens serving in the British Army. But by virtue of the Ireland Act, 1949, section 2, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland is not an alien for the purpose of this Section. From this it follows that for the purposes of the Army Act, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland is not an alien, and, in fact, citizens of that Republic serve in the British Army on exactly the same terms as citizens of the United Kingdom.
There is certain work in the Army of a secret nature which can only be entrusted to men and women in whom the highest confidence can be placed. No one born in Southern Ireland is excluded from consideration for these posts by reason of his birth. There is no regulation and no directive issued by the War Office or by any subordinate command which lays down that they should be excluded. If a question of security arises, each case is judged on its merits, and Southern Irish nationality or parentage is not, in itself, a factor which influences the decision one way or the other.
It appears that the signalman referred to by my hon. Friend was, in the first place, wrongly advised on this question by his troop-sergeant, who was not fully conversant with the relevant Sections either of the Army Act or of the Ireland Act, 1949. As a result of this, the signalman did not make a formal application for training as an Operator (Keyboard and Cypher), which was what he wanted to be. When his case, through my hon. Friend, was subsequently brought to the attention of higher authority he was accepted, and has now duly completed his training.
It is always possible that N.C.O.s, and even officers, may not be fully informed on individual points of policy. That is something which may always happen; but steps are being taken to ensure that the regulations on this point are in future as widely known and understood as possible. I can give the House an assurance that these regulations are, and will continue to be, observed not only in the letter but also in the spirit. If hon. Members will bring to my notice individual cases where there seems to have been a breach of these regulations I shall be very glad to look into them.
While we are discussing this subject, I should like to say how glad the British Army is to receive recruits from Southern Ireland. The Irish—and here I would not venture to draw a distinction between North and South—have always been famous for their fighting qualities. When it comes to a fight, the honours are fairly even between the two. Certainly the tradition of Irishmen serving in our

Army is very old and glorious. I hope that it will continue and flourish for many years. Hon. Members may be sure that my right hon. Friend will do everything in his power to encourage the connection and nothing whatever to discourage it.

Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes past One o'Clock.